Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Comparison of outcomes between cortical screws and traditional pedicle screws for lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author (years) Country Study type Number of samples Gender (male) Average age Follow-up (months) Technique of fusion Outcomes
CS/PS CS/PS CS/PS CS/PS CS/PS
Hoffman et al. (2019) [15] USA Cohort 23/35 16/16 48.5/53.4 52.5/52.5 MIDLF/TLIF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
Marengo et al. (2018) [16] Italy Cohort 20/20 12/9 45.75/54 12/12 PLIF/PLIF 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
Lee and Ahn (2017) [17] Korea RCT 35/37 31/33 51.2/51.7 24/24 PLIF/PLIF 4, 5, 6, 9, 10
Takenaka et al. (2017) [18] Japan Cohort 42/77 18/31 65.8/66.0 17/35.4 PLIF/PLIF 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10
Sakaura et al. (2017) [19] Japan Cohort 22/20 4/6 70.7/68.3 39/35 PLIF/PLIF 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10
Peng et al. (2017) [20] China Cohort 51/46 23/21 62.8/61.9 12/12 PLIF/PLIF 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10
Sakaura et al. (2016) [21] Japan Cohort 95/82 46/36 68.7/67.0 39/35 PLIF/PLIF 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10
Orita et al. (2016) [22] Japan Cohort 20/20 11/12 63.5/63.7 12/12 TLIF/TLIF 1, 2
Hung et al. (2016) [14] China Cohort 16/16 6/5 60.37/63.12 18/18 PLIF/PLIF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Ninomiya et al. (2016) [23] Japan Cohort 11/10 7/5 62.2/61.4 12/12 PLIF/PLIF 9
Chin et al. (2016) [24] USA Cohort 30/30 18/15 48/62 24/24 NM/NM 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Lee et al. (2015) [13] Korea RCT 38/39 33/34 51.3/51.9 12/12 PLIF/PLIF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10
  1. Outcomes: 1. Blood loss, 2. Operating time, 3. Length of stay, 4. Visual analog score (back pain), 5. Visual analog score(leg pain), 6. Oswestry Disability Index, 7. Japanese Orthopaedic Association, 8. Intraoperative complications, 9. Postoperative complications, 10. Fusion rate. CS: cortical screw PS: pedicle screw RCT: Randomized controlled trial MIDLF: midline lumbar fusion TLIF: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion PLIF: posterior lumbar interbody fusion NM: not mentioned
Back to article page