Suppr超能文献

腰椎滑脱症中环形融合与后外侧融合的荟萃分析。

Meta-analysis of circumferential fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis.

作者信息

Liu Xiao-Yang, Wang Yi-Peng, Qiu Gui-Xing, Weng Xi-Sheng, Yu Bin

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

出版信息

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014 Dec;27(8):E282-93. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000116.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review and meta-analysis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Posterolateral fusion (PLF) and circumferential fusion (CF) were widely used in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. There was a great controversy over the preferred fusion method.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis for determining which fusion method was better in lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library from January 1960 to December 2013. Comparative studies were selected according to eligibility criteria. Weighed mean differences (WMDs) and risk differences were calculated. The final strength of evidence was expressed as different levels recommended by the GRADE Working Group.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies were identified. There was less evidence that no significant difference was found between CF and PLF for clinical satisfaction [odds ratio (OR), 0.63; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.30, 1.32; P=0.22)] and for complication rate (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.23, 1.76; P=0.39). The PLF was more effective than the CF for the reduction of complication rate for patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.86; P=0.02). There was no significant difference for fusion rate, reoperation rate, operating time, and blood loss. Subanalysis showed that the CF can increase the fusion rate of patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01, 1.00; P=0.05). PLF was more effective than CF for the reduction in operating time (WMD=-75.68; 95% CI, -99.00, -52.37; P<0.00001), and CF was more effective than PLF for the restoration of segment lordosis, disk height, and spondylolisthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

There was really no difference for clinical satisfaction, complication rate, fusion rate, reoperation rate, operating time, and blood loss. PLF can reduce complication rate and operating time. CF can improve fusion rate for individuals with isthmic spondylolisthesis and restore lumbar alignment. The level of evidence was low.

摘要

研究设计

文献综述与荟萃分析。

背景数据总结

后外侧融合术(PLF)和环形融合术(CF)广泛应用于腰椎滑脱的治疗。对于哪种融合方法更优存在很大争议。

目的

我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以确定在腰椎滑脱中哪种融合方法更好。

方法

于1960年1月至2013年12月在MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane协作图书馆进行系统检索。根据纳入标准选择比较研究。计算加权平均差(WMDs)和风险差。最终证据强度按照GRADE工作组推荐的不同级别表示。

结果

共确定了8项比较研究。对于临床满意度[优势比(OR),0.63;95%置信区间(95%CI),0.30,1.32;P = 0.22]和并发症发生率(OR,0.64;95%CI,0.23,1.76;P = 0.39),CF和PLF之间无显著差异的证据较少。对于峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者,PLF在降低并发症发生率方面比CF更有效(OR,0.44;95%CI,0.23,0.86;P = 0.02)。在融合率、再次手术率、手术时间和失血量方面无显著差异。亚组分析显示,CF可提高峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者的融合率(OR,0.12;95%CI,0.01,1.00;P = 0.05)。PLF在缩短手术时间方面比CF更有效(WMD = -75.68;95%CI,-99.00,-52.37;P < 0.00001),而CF在恢复节段前凸、椎间盘高度和腰椎滑脱方面比PLF更有效。

结论

在临床满意度、并发症发生率、融合率、再次手术率、手术时间和失血量方面确实没有差异。PLF可降低并发症发生率和缩短手术时间。CF可提高峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者的融合率并恢复腰椎排列。证据级别较低。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验