BACKGROUND: It is still controversial that interspinous dynamic stabilization system Wallis and Coflex which one can provide better clinical effects for lumbar degenerative disease.OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of Wallis and Coflex for lumbar degenerative disease.METHODS: According to the computer-based online search of PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, CBM,CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP, articles published before August 1st, 2016 were searched. Articles about Wallis comparing with Coflex for lumbar degenerative disease were included; the quality score of methodology was assessed by MINORS. Research data abstracted and synthesized by Review Manager 5.3 were used for meta-analysis.RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Six studies were included, and all studies were designed for non-randomized controlled trial. (2) There were no significant statistical differences in Japanese Orthopedic Association, Oswestry disability index, visual analogue scale score, Prolo functional score, segmental lordosis angle, and segment movement degree. Incidence of adverse events was significantlue scale less in the Wallis group than in the Conflex group (P < 0.05).(3) There was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between Wallis and Coflex in the early and mid-term follow-up.We can conclude that Wallis may provide better clinical safety than Coflex.%背景:Wallis与Coflex两种棘突间动态稳定系统对比治疗腰椎退行性疾病孰优孰劣一直存在争议.目的:系统评价Wallis与Coflex两种棘突间动态稳定系统修复腰椎退行性疾病的有效性与安全性.方法:计算机检索2016-08-01以前PubMed、Embase、Medline、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、万方数据库(Wanfang Database)、维普中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)关于Wallis与Coflex两种棘突间动态稳定系统对比治疗腰椎退行性疾病的文献,纳入文献的方法学质量采用MINORS量表评价,数据通过Review Manager 5.3软件进行Meta分析.结果与结论:①共纳入6篇文献,均为非随机对照试验;②结局指标中日本骨科学会评分、Oswestry残障指数、目测类比评分、Prolo腰椎功能评分、手术节段前凸角、手术节段活动度2种术式比较差异无显著性意义;Wallis组的不良事件发生率显著低于Conflex组(P<0.05);③结果提示,Wallis与Coflex在早中期随访当中两者临床有效性无明显差异,但在临床安全性方面Wallis较Coflex更具优势.
展开▼
