» Articles » PMID: 36481444

Efficacy and Safety of Lumbar Dynamic Stabilization Device Coflex for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal World Neurosurg
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2022 Dec 8
PMID 36481444
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate evidence for the comparison of lumbar dynamic stabilization device Coflex (Surgalign, Deerfield, IL) with posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis).

Methods: Relational databases were searched to October 2022. The main outcome measures included operation time, Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), total complications, and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration).

Results: A total of 26 studies were included. The main results of this meta-analysis showed lumbar dynamic stabilization device Coflex had shorter operation time (mean difference [MD] -50.77 min, 95% CI -57.24 to -44.30, P < 0.00001), less intraoperative blood loss (MD -122.21 mL, 95% CI -129.68 to -94.74, P < 0.00001), and shorter hospital stays (MD -3.21 days, 95% CI -4.04 to -2.37, P < 0.00001). What's more, the JOA score and ODI score were higher in the Coflex group during early follow-up. Yet, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with the extension of follow-up time. Moreover, the Coflex group had a lower VAS score than fusion treatment (P < 0.00001). Finally, the Coflex group had lower total complications rate (P = 0.03), lower ASD rate (P = 0.001), and higher range of motion (P < 0.00001), but there was no significant difference in reoperation rate and internal fixation problems rate.

Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that lumbar dynamic stabilization device Coflex is superior to posterior lumbar fusion in early follow-up. However, considering that the dynamic stabilization device group also has its limitations, these findings need to be further verified by multicenter, double-blind, and large-sample randomized controlled trials.

Citing Articles

Efficacy and safety of en-bloc resection versus debulking for spinal tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang K, Zhou Q, Da L, Zhang G World J Surg Oncol. 2024; 22(1):208.

PMID: 39097729 PMC: 11297604. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-024-03494-3.


Two-Stage Lumbar Dynamic Stabilization Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis of Screw Loosening Rates and Functional Outcomes Compared to Single-Stage Approach in Osteopenic and Osteoporotic Patients.

Hekimoglu M, Akgun M, Ozer H, Basak A, Ucar E, Oktenoglu T Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(14).

PMID: 39061642 PMC: 11275406. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14141505.


Efficacy and safety of interspinous process device compared with alone decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhu C, Xiao G Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(23):e38370.

PMID: 38847722 PMC: 11155552. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038370.


Use of problem-based learning in orthopaedics education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Li T, Song R, Zhong W, Liao W, Hu J, Liu X BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):253.

PMID: 38459551 PMC: 10921736. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05244-1.


Perspective: Efficacy and outcomes for different lumbar interspinous devices (ISD) vs. open surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Epstein N, Agulnick M Surg Neurol Int. 2024; 15:17.

PMID: 38344078 PMC: 10858763. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_1007_2023.