Suppr超能文献

前路颈椎间盘切除融合术与后路颈椎椎间孔切开术治疗神经根型颈椎病的比较:一项系统评价

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

作者信息

Liu Wei-Jun, Hu Ling, Chou Po-Hsin, Wang Jun-Wen, Kan Wu-Sheng

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, Pu Ai Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

Department of Anesthesiology, Tianyou Hospital, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

出版信息

Orthop Surg. 2016 Nov;8(4):425-431. doi: 10.1111/os.12285.

Abstract

Controversy remains over whether anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) is superior for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. We therefore performed a systematic review including three prospective randomized controlled trails (RCT) and seven retrospective comparative studies (RCoS) by searching PubMed and EMBASE. These studies were assessed on risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and the quality of evidence and level of recommendation were evaluated according to the GRADE approach. Clinical outcomes, complications, reoperation rates, radiological parameters, and cost/cost-utility were evaluated. The mean complication rate was 7% in the ACDF group and 4% in the PCF group, and the mean reoperation rate was 4% in the ACDF group and 6% in the PCF group within 2 years of the initial surgery. There was a strong level of recommendation that no difference existed in clinical outcome, complication rate and reoperation rate between the ACDF and the PCF group. There was conflicting evidence that the ACDF group had better clinical outcomes than the PCF group (one study with weak level of recommendation). PCF could preserve the range of motion (ROM) of the operated segment but did not increase the ROM of the adjacent segment (weak level of recommendation). Meanwhile, the average cost or cost-utility of the PCF group was significantly lower than that of the ACDF group (weak level of recommendation). In conclusion, the PCF was just as safe and effective as the ACDF in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Meanwhile, PCF might have lower medical cost than ACDF and decrease the incidence of adjacent segment disease. Based on the available evidence, PCF appears to be another good surgical approach in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.

摘要

对于治疗神经根型颈椎病,前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)或后路颈椎椎间孔切开术(PCF)哪种方法更优仍存在争议。因此,我们通过检索PubMed和EMBASE进行了一项系统评价,纳入了三项前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT)和七项回顾性比较研究(RCoS)。根据《Cochrane系统评价干预措施手册》对这些研究进行偏倚风险评估,并根据GRADE方法评估证据质量和推荐级别。评估了临床结局、并发症、再次手术率、放射学参数以及成本/成本效用。初次手术后2年内,ACDF组的平均并发症发生率为7%,PCF组为4%;ACDF组的平均再次手术率为4%,PCF组为6%。有强烈的推荐级别表明,ACDF组和PCF组在临床结局、并发症发生率和再次手术率方面没有差异。有相互矛盾的证据表明ACDF组的临床结局优于PCF组(一项推荐级别较弱的研究)。PCF可以保留手术节段的活动度(ROM),但不会增加相邻节段的ROM(推荐级别较弱)。同时,PCF组的平均成本或成本效用显著低于ACDF组(推荐级别较弱)。总之,在治疗神经根型颈椎病方面,PCF与ACDF一样安全有效。同时,PCF的医疗成本可能低于ACDF,并降低相邻节段疾病的发生率。基于现有证据,PCF似乎是治疗神经根型颈椎病的另一种良好手术方法。

相似文献

3
Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Discectomy.内镜下颈椎后路椎间孔切开术及椎间盘切除术。
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2025 Jun 25;15(2). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.24.00003. eCollection 2025 Apr-Jun.

引用本文的文献

2
Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Discectomy.内镜下颈椎后路椎间孔切开术及椎间盘切除术。
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2025 Jun 25;15(2). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.24.00003. eCollection 2025 Apr-Jun.
3
The use of cervical interfacet devices and related clinical outcomes.颈椎小关节装置的使用及相关临床结果。
Eur Spine J. 2025 Mar;34(3):1211-1217. doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08626-7. Epub 2025 Jan 22.
5
[Cervical disc herniation : Symptomatology, diagnostics, therapy].[颈椎间盘突出症:症状学、诊断、治疗]
Orthopadie (Heidelb). 2025 Jan;54(1):26-39. doi: 10.1007/s00132-024-04582-8. Epub 2024 Nov 19.

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验