Suppr超能文献

椎板切除加器械融合术与椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及安全性比较

Comparison of clinical outcomes and safety between laminectomy with instrumented fusion versus laminoplasty for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

作者信息

Lin Xiang, Cai Jie, Qin Chuan, Yang Qinghua, Xiao Zengming

机构信息

Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.

Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Feb;98(8):e14651. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014651.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Posterior laminectomy with instrumented fusion and laminoplasty are widely used for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM). There is great controversy over the preferred surgical method. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety between laminectomy with instrumented fusion and laminoplasty for the treatment of MCSM.

METHODS

Related studies that compared the effectiveness of laminectomy with instrumented fusion and laminoplasty for the treatment of MCSM were acquired by a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, CNKI, VIP, and WANFANG up to April 2018. Included studies were evaluated according to eligibility criteria. The main endpoints included: preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS), preoperative and postoperative cervical range of motion (ROM), preoperative and postoperative cervical curvature index (CCI), overall complication rate, C5 nerve palsy rate, axial symptoms rate, operation time and blood loss.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. All of the selected studies were of high quality as indicated by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Among 1131 patients, 555 underwent laminectomy with instrumented fusion and 576 underwent laminoplasty. The results of this meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in preoperative and postoperative JOA scores, preoperative and postoperative VAS, preoperative and postoperative CCI, preoperative ROM and axial symptoms rate. However, compared with laminoplasty, laminectomy with instrumented fusion exhibited a higher overall complication rate [RR = 1.99, 95% confidence intervals (CI) (1.24, 3.21), P <.05], a higher C5 palsy rate [RR = 2.22, 95% CI (1.30, 3.80), P <.05], a decreased postoperative ROM [SMD = -1.51, 95% CI (-2.14, -0.88), P <.05], a longer operation time [SMD = 0.51, 95% CI (0.12, 0.90), P <.05] and increased blood loss [SMD = 0.47, 95% CI (0.30, 0.65), P <.05].

CONCLUSION

These results suggested that both posterior laminectomy with instrumented fusion and laminoplasty were determined to be effective for MCSM. However, laminoplasty appeared to allow for a greater ROM, lower overall complication and C5 palsy rates, shorter operation time and lower blood loss. Future well-designed, randomized controlled trials are still needed to further confirm our results.

摘要

研究设计

系统评价与荟萃分析。

目的

后路椎板切除术联合器械融合术和椎板成形术广泛应用于多节段脊髓型颈椎病(MCSM)的治疗。对于首选的手术方法存在很大争议。本研究的目的是评估椎板切除术联合器械融合术与椎板成形术治疗MCSM的临床疗效和安全性。

方法

通过全面检索截至2018年4月的PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国知网、维普和万方数据库,获取比较椎板切除术联合器械融合术与椎板成形术治疗MCSM有效性的相关研究。根据纳入标准对纳入研究进行评估。主要终点指标包括:术前和术后日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、术前和术后视觉模拟量表(VAS)、术前和术后颈椎活动度(ROM)、术前和术后颈椎曲度指数(CCI)、总体并发症发生率、C5神经麻痹发生率、轴性症状发生率、手术时间和失血量。

结果

本荟萃分析共纳入15项研究。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)显示,所有入选研究质量均较高。在1131例患者中,555例行椎板切除术联合器械融合术,576例行椎板成形术。本荟萃分析结果表明,术前和术后JOA评分、术前和术后VAS、术前和术后CCI、术前ROM和轴性症状发生率无显著差异。然而,与椎板成形术相比,椎板切除术联合器械融合术的总体并发症发生率更高[RR = 1.99,95%置信区间(CI)(1.24,3.21),P <.05],C5神经麻痹发生率更高[RR = 2.22,95% CI(1.30,3.80),P <.05],术后ROM降低[SMD = -1.51,95% CI(-2.14,-0.88),P <.05],手术时间更长[SMD = 0.51,95% CI(0.12,0.90),P <.05],失血量增加[SMD = 0.47,95% CI(0.30,0.65),P <.05]。

结论

这些结果表明,后路椎板切除术联合器械融合术和椎板成形术治疗MCSM均有效。然而,椎板成形术似乎能提供更大的ROM,总体并发症和C5神经麻痹发生率更低,手术时间更短,失血量更少。未来仍需要设计良好的随机对照试验来进一步证实我们的结果。

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