Fusion in situ versus reduction for spondylolisthesis treatment: grading the evidence through a meta-analysis.

purposeDuring surgical procedure on lumbar spondylolisthesis, the role of reducing slip remains controversial. The purpose of the present study was to compare fusion in situ with reduction in clinical and radiographic outcomes.

methodsA literature research was performed at PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. After screening by two authors, ten articles were brought into this meta-analysis finally, and the quality was evaluated by the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Isthmic, moderate, and serious spondylolisthesis were all analyzed separately. Sensitivity analyses were performed for high-quality studies, and the publication bias was evaluated by the funnel plot.

resultsMost criteria did not have statistical differences between reduction and fusion in situ groups. However, in reduction group, the union rate was significantly higher (P=0.008), the slippage was much improved (P<0.001) and the hospital stay was much shorter comparing to no-reduction group (P<0.001). Subgroup analysis (containing moderate and serious slip, or isthmic spondylolisthesis) and sensitivity analysis were all consistent with original ones, and the funnel plot indicated no obvious publication bias in this meta-analysis.

conclusionsBoth reduction and fusion in situ for lumbar spondylolisthesis were related with good clinical results. Reduction led to higher rate of fusion, better radiographic slippage, and shorter hospital stay. After sufficient decompression, reduction did not incur additional risk of neurologic impairment compared with fusion in situ.