Suppr超能文献

间接荟萃分析比较颈椎退行性疾病行全颈椎间盘置换与融合的临床结局。

Indirect meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of total cervical disc replacements with fusions for cervical degenerative disc disease.

机构信息

Biomechanics Laboratory of Orthopaedic Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China.

Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2017 May 11;7(1):1740. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01865-3.

Abstract

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and total cervical disc replacement (TDR) are considered effective treatments for patients with cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). An indirect meta-analysis including 19 randomized controlled trials (5343 patients) was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of ACDF with TDR. Primary outcomes including functional indicators (NDI [neck disability index] score, neurological success and patient satisfaction), secondary outcomes including surgical outcomes (operation time, blood loss and length of stay) and secondary surgical procedures (secondary surgery at an adjacent level, secondary surgery at the index level, secondary surgery at both levels, removal, reoperation, revision and supplemental fixation) were included in the study. TDR using the Bryan disc was associated with a greater improvement in NDI score than ACDF (MD = -5.574, 95% CrIs [credible intervals] -11.73--0.219). For neurological success, the Bryan (odds ratio [OR] = 0.559, 95% CrIs 0.323-0.955) and Prestige (OR = 0.474, 95% CrIs 0.319-0.700) discs were superior to ACDF. However, no differences in the patient satisfaction rate were shown between TDR and ACDF. For patients with CDDD, ACDF using allograft and a plate is most effective for determining the surgical parameters. Moreover, TDR using the ProDisc-C, Mobi-C, Prestige and Bryan discs are good choices for improving functional outcomes and reducing secondary surgeries.

摘要

颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和颈椎全椎间盘置换术(TDR)被认为是治疗颈椎退行性椎间盘疾病(CDDD)患者的有效方法。本研究进行了一项包含 19 项随机对照试验(5343 例患者)的间接荟萃分析,旨在比较 ACDF 与 TDR 的临床疗效。主要结局指标包括功能指标(NDI [颈椎残障指数]评分、神经成功和患者满意度),次要结局指标包括手术结局(手术时间、出血量和住院时间)和二次手术(相邻节段二次手术、原节段二次手术、双节段二次手术、翻修、再手术、返修和补充固定)。与 ACDF 相比,使用 Bryan 椎间盘的 TDR 可显著改善 NDI 评分(MD=-5.574,95%CrIs [-11.73,0.219])。在神经成功方面,Bryan(比值比 [OR]=0.559,95%CrIs 0.323-0.955)和 Prestige(OR=0.474,95%CrIs 0.319-0.700)椎间盘优于 ACDF。然而,TDR 和 ACDF 之间的患者满意度没有差异。对于 C DDD 患者,使用同种异体骨和钢板的 ACDF 最能确定手术参数。此外,使用 ProDisc-C、Mobi-C、Prestige 和 Bryan 椎间盘的 TDR 是改善功能结局和减少二次手术的较好选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dd19/5431800/ab92c6970716/41598_2017_1865_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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