医学
标准化
桥接(联网)
可靠性(半导体)
医学物理学
梅德林
系统回顾
计算机科学
操作系统
计算机网络
功率(物理)
物理
量子力学
政治学
法学
作者
Anneli Duits,P. R. van Urk,A. Mechteld Lehr,Don Nutzinger,Maarten Reijnders,Harrie Weinans,Wouter Foppen,F. Cumhur Öner,Steven M. van Gaalen,Moyo C. Kruyt
出处
期刊:Jbjs reviews
[Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]
日期:2024-01-01
卷期号:12 (1)
被引量:11
标识
DOI:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.23.00065
摘要
Background: Lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is a common procedure to fuse the anterior spine. However, a lack of consensus on image-based fusion assessment limits the validity and comparison of IF studies. This systematic review aims to (1) report on IF assessment strategies and definitions and (2) summarize available literature on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of these assessments. Methods: Two searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Search 1 identified studies on adult lumbar IF that provided a detailed description of image-based fusion assessment. Search 2 analyzed studies on the reliability of specific fusion criteria/classifications and the accuracy assessed with surgical exploration. Results: A total of 442 studies were included for search 1 and 8 studies for search 2. Fusion assessment throughout the literature was highly variable. Eighteen definitions and more than 250 unique fusion assessment methods were identified. The criteria that showed most consistent use were continuity of bony bridging, radiolucency around the cage, and angular motion <5°. However, reliability and accuracy studies were scarce. Conclusion: This review highlights the challenges in reaching consensus on IF assessment. The variability in IF assessment is very high, which limits the translatability of studies. Accuracy studies are needed to guide innovations of assessment. Future IF assessment strategies should focus on the standardization of computed tomography–based continuity of bony bridging. Knowledge from preclinical and imaging studies can add valuable information to this ongoing discussion. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI