Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32481251›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Dynesys system vs posterior decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Hongbo Wang, Jun Peng, Qingshen Zeng, Yanchun Zhong, Chunlin Xiao, Yongjun Ye, Weimin Huang, Wuyang Liu, Jiaquan Luo

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hongbo WangDepartment of Spine Surgery, Shenzhen Baoan Shajing People's Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Shenzhen.
Jun PengDepartment of Spine Surgery, Shenzhen Baoan Shajing People's Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Shenzhen.
Qingshen ZengDepartment of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, PR China.
Yanchun ZhongDepartment of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, PR China.
Chunlin XiaoDepartment of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, PR China.
Yongjun YeDepartment of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, PR China.
Weimin HuangDepartment of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, PR China.
Wuyang LiuDepartment of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, PR China.
Jiaquan LuoDepartment of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, PR China.
Shenzhen Shajing Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Dynesys dynamic stabilization system is an alternative to rigid instrumentation and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy between Dynesys and posterior decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases.

methodsThe computer was used to retrieve the Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang database and Chinese biomedical literature database; and the references and main Chinese and English Department of orthopedics journals were manually searched. All the prospective or retrospective comparative studies on the clinical efficacy and safety of Dynesys and posterior decompression and fusion were collected, so as to evaluate the methodological quality of the study and to extract the data. The RevMan 5.2 software was used for data analysis.

resultsA total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in Oswestry disability index and visual analogue score for leg pain, visual analogue score for back pain, L2-S1 ROM between Dynesys and fusion group. Operation time, blood loss, length of stay and complications in the Dynesys group were significantly less than that in the fusion group. Adjacent-segment degeneration in the fusion group was significantly higher than that in the Dynesys group. In addition, postoperative operated segment ROM was significantly less in the fusion group as compared to the Dynesys group.

conclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that Dynesys system acquires comparable clinical outcomes compared to fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Moreover, compared with fusion, Dynesys could remain ROM of surgical segments with less operation time, blood loss, length of stay, adjacent-segment degeneration, and lower complication. Further studies with large samples, long term follow up and well-designed are needed to assess the two procedures in the future.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalSpinal FusionHumansLumbar VertebraeOrthopedic ProceduresTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32481251
PMCPMC7249866
OpenAlexW3030877810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.