Liu Weijun, Hu Ling, Wang Junwen, Liu Ming, Wang Xiaomei
Department of Orthopedics, Pu Ai Hospital, Affiliated to Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Tianyou Hospital, Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015 Sep 23;11:1437-47. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S92511. eCollection 2015.
Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether zero-profile anchored spacer (Zero-P) could reduce complication rates, while maintaining similar clinical outcomes compared to plate-cage construct (PCC) in the treatment of cervical spondylosis.
All prospective and retrospective comparative studies published up to May 2015 that compared the clinical outcomes of Zero-P versus PCC in the treatment of cervical spondylosis were acquired by a comprehensive search in PubMed and EMBASE. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies, noncomparative studies, hybrid surgeries, revision surgeries, and surgeries with less than a 12-month follow-up period. The main end points including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, cervical lordosis, fusion rate, subsidence, and dysphagia were analyzed. All studies were analyzed with the RevMan 5.2.0 software. Publication biases of main results were examined using Stata 12.0.
A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No statistical difference was observed with regard to preoperative or postoperative JOA and NDI scores, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. The Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group (P<0.05, risk difference =0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.26). However, the Zero-P group had a significantly lower postoperative dysphagia rate than the PCC group within the first 2 weeks (P<0.05, odds ratio [OR] =0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91), at the 6th month [P<0.05, OR =0.20, 95% CI 0.04-0.90], and at the final follow-up time [P<0.05, OR =0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.45].
Our meta-analysis suggested that surgical treatments of single or multiple levels of cervical spondylosis using Zero-P and PCC were similar in terms of JOA score, NDI score, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. Although the Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group, Zero-P had a lower postoperative dysphagia rate and might have a lower adjacent-level ossification rate.
进行荟萃分析,以评估零轮廓锚定间隔器(Zero-P)在治疗颈椎病时能否降低并发症发生率,同时保持与钢板笼式结构(PCC)相似的临床疗效。
通过对PubMed和EMBASE进行全面检索,获取截至2015年5月发表的所有比较Zero-P与PCC治疗颈椎病临床疗效的前瞻性和回顾性对照研究。排除标准为非英文研究、非对照研究、混合手术、翻修手术以及随访期少于12个月的手术。分析主要终点指标,包括日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)评分、颈椎前凸、融合率、沉降以及吞咽困难情况。所有研究均使用RevMan 5.2.0软件进行分析。使用Stata 12.0检查主要结果的发表偏倚。
荟萃分析共纳入12项研究。术前或术后的JOA和NDI评分、颈椎前凸及融合率方面未观察到统计学差异。Zero-P组的沉降率高于PCC组(P<0.05,风险差异=0.13, 95%置信区间[CI] 0.00 - 0.26)。然而,Zero-P组术后2周内吞咽困难率显著低于PCC组(P<0.05,优势比[OR]=0.64, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.9),在第6个月时(P<0.05, OR =0.20, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.90)以及末次随访时(P<0.05, OR =0.13, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.45)也是如此。
我们的荟萃分析表明,使用Zero-P和PCC治疗单节段或多节段颈椎病在JOA评分、NDI评分、颈椎前凸及融合率方面相似。尽管Zero-P组的沉降率高于PCC组,但Zero-P术后吞咽困难率较低,且可能具有较低的相邻节段骨化率。