• Jianqing Zheng, Yue Wu, Chunliang Guo, Xiule Fang, and Tao Ding.
• Department of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.
• World Neurosurg. 2024 Aug 1; 188: e233e246e233-e246.

ObjectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws and traditional pedicle screws in lumbar fusion.MethodsRandomized controlled studies and cohort studies on CBT versus pedicle screws in lumbar fusion were searched in China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP Database for Chinese Technical and Science Periodicals, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The search period spanned from the establishment of the databases to December 2023. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the literature included. Clinical and imaging data as well as surgical outcomes, recovery, and postoperative complications were extracted from the relevant literature.ResultsA total of 6 randomized controlled trials and 26 cohort studies were included after screening by inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 2478 patients. The meta-analysis demonstrated significant discrepancies between the CBT and TPS groups in Japanese Orthopaedic Association score at 3 and 6 months and final follow-up. Moreover, the TPS group exhibited a higher Oswestry disability index at final follow-up, a greater VAS for low back pain at both 1 week and final follow-up, as well as a higher VAS for leg pain at 1 month. Differences were also noted in surgical and recovery outcomes. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in postoperative complications.ConclusionsCBT and TPS have analogous safety profiles when applied to lumbar fusion, but the clinical efficacy of CBT is superior to that of TPS to some extent, and the procedure is less invasive with faster recovery.Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…