Lan Tao, Hu Shi-Yu, Yang Xin-Jian, Chen Yang, Qiu Yi-Yan, Guo Wei-Zhuang, Lin Jian-Ze, Ren Kai
Department of Spine Surgery, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518035, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Department of Neurology, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518035, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Eur Spine J. 2017 Jul;26(7):1796-1802. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5045-3. Epub 2017 Mar 18.
The purpose of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs was to gather data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bipolar sealer versus standard electrocautery in the management of spinal disease.
The electronic databases including Embase, PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify relevant studies published from the time of the establishment of these databases up to January 2017. The primary outcomes were total blood loss, requirement of transfusion (rate and amount), and operation time. The secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and postoperative wound infection. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 software.
A total of five studies involving 500 patients (261 patients in the BS group and 239 in the control group) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that application of bipolar sealer could decrease the total blood loss in spine surgery [WMD = -467.49, 95% CI (685.47 to -249.51); p < 0.05; I = 91%]. Compared with standard electrocautery, bipolar sealer was associated with lower rates of need for transfusion [OR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.16-0.55), p < 0.05; I = 0%]. In addition, patients in the BS group were likely to receive less amount of blood transfusion compared with patients in the control group[WMD = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.09), p < 0.05; I = 76%]. The mean operative time was shorter in the BS groups compared with the control group [SMD = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.60 to -0.13), p < 0.05; I = 0%]. There was no significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay [WMD = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.51), p = 0.25; I = 67%] and postoperative wound infection [OR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.31-2.48), p = 0.81; I = 0.0%] between both groups.
The available evidence suggests that bipolar sealer is superior to standard electrocautery with less blood loss, shorter operation time and less transfusion requirement. There is no significant difference between both groups regarding length of hospitalization and wound infection. Hence, bipolar sealer is recommended in spine surgery. Because of the limitation of our study, more well-designed RCTs with large sample are required to provide further evidence of safety and efficacy between bipolar sealer and standard electrocautery in the treatment of spinal disease.
本随机对照试验(RCT)和非RCT的荟萃分析旨在收集数据,以评估双极电凝器与标准电灼术在脊柱疾病治疗中的疗效和安全性。
检索包括Embase、PubMed和Cochrane图书馆在内的电子数据库,以识别从这些数据库建立之时至2017年1月发表的相关研究。主要结局指标为总失血量、输血需求(率和量)及手术时间。次要结局指标为住院时间和术后伤口感染。使用RevMan 5.3软件进行数据分析。
共有五项研究纳入荟萃分析,涉及500例患者(双极电凝器组261例,对照组239例)。汇总结果显示,应用双极电凝器可减少脊柱手术中的总失血量[加权均数差(WMD)=-467.49,95%可信区间(CI)(-685.47至-249.51);p<0.05;I²=91%]。与标准电灼术相比,双极电凝器的输血需求率较低[比值比(OR)=0.30,95%CI(0.16 - 0.55),p<0.05;I²=0%]。此外,与对照组患者相比,双极电凝器组患者可能接受的输血量更少[WMD=-0.73,95%CI(-1.37至-0.09),p<0.05;I²=76%]。双极电凝器组的平均手术时间比对照组短[标准化均数差(SMD)=-0.36,95%CI(-0.60至-0.13),p<0.05;I²=0%]。两组在住院时间[WMD=-0.73,95%CI(-1.96至0.51),p=0.25;I²=67%]和术后伤口感染[OR=0.88,95%CI(0.31 - 2.48),p=0.81;I²=0.0%]方面无显著差异。
现有证据表明,双极电凝器优于标准电灼术,失血量更少、手术时间更短且输血需求更少。两组在住院时间和伤口感染方面无显著差异。因此,脊柱手术推荐使用双极电凝器。由于本研究存在局限性,需要更多设计良好的大样本随机对照试验,以提供双极电凝器与标准电灼术在脊柱疾病治疗中安全性和有效性的进一步证据。