Table 2

Three studies reviewed in this paper

Author(s) (year)DesignNo of patientsOutcome assessmentFindings
Zdeblick (1993)21Prospective randomised124Scale of excellent, good, fair and poor
  • – 40% increase in fusion with instrumentation (p=0.002)

  • – 21% increase in rating as ‘excellent outcome’ with rigid instrumentation (p=0.03)

Fritzell (2002)22Prospective randomised294Oswestry Disability Score, general function score, visual assessment score
  • – 15% increase in fusion with instrumentation (p=0.004)

  • – No difference in outcome assessment

Fischgrund (1997)23Prospective randomised76Scale of excellent, good and poor
  • – 37% increase in fusion with instrumentation (p=0.0015)

  • – 9% increase in rating as ‘excellent or good outcome’ in non-instrumented patients relative to instrumented patients