Yuan Xiaojun, Wei Chunmei, Xu Wenhua, Gan Xinrong, Cao Shengsheng, Luo Jiaquan
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, People's Hospital of Yichun City, Yichun.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Mar;98(13):e14971. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014971.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy between laminectomy and fusion (LF) versus laminoplasty (LP) for the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
The authors searched electronic databases using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and Google Scholar for relevant studies that compared the clinical effectiveness of LF and LP for the treatment of patients with multilevel CSM. The following outcome measures were extracted: the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, cervical curvature index (CCI), visual analog scale (VAS), Nurich grade, reoperation rate, complications, rate of nerve palsies. Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS) was used to evaluate the quality of each study. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3.
A total of 14 studies were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (P = .29), visual analog scale neck pain (P = .64), cervical curvature index (P = .24), Nurich grade (P = .16) and reoperation rate (P = .21) between LF and LP groups. Compared with LP group, the total complication rate (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.85, 3.64, I = 26%, P < .00001) and rate of nerve palsies (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.66, 6.11, I = 47%, P = .0005) was higher in the LF group.
Our meta-analysis reveals that surgical treatments of multilevel CSM are similar in terms of most clinical outcomes using LF and LP. However, LP was found to be superior than LF in terms of nerve palsy complications. This requires further validation and investigation in larger sample-size prospective and randomized studies.
本研究旨在评估椎板切除术与融合术(LF)对比椎板成形术(LP)治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)的临床安全性和疗效。
作者使用PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane对照试验注册库和谷歌学术搜索电子数据库,以查找比较LF和LP治疗多节段CSM患者临床疗效的相关研究。提取以下结局指标:日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、颈椎曲度指数(CCI)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Nurich分级、再次手术率、并发症、神经麻痹发生率。采用纽卡斯尔渥太华质量评估量表(NOQAS)评估每项研究的质量。使用RevMan 5.3进行数据分析。
我们的荟萃分析共纳入14项研究。LF组和LP组在术后日本骨科协会评分(P = 0.29)、视觉模拟量表颈部疼痛评分(P = 0.64)、颈椎曲度指数(P = 0.24)、Nurich分级(P = 0.16)和再次手术率(P = 0.21)方面未观察到显著差异。与LP组相比,LF组的总并发症发生率(OR 2.60,95% CI 1.85, 3.64,I = 26%,P < 0.00001)和神经麻痹发生率(OR 3.18,95% CI 1.66, 6.11,I = 47%,P = 0.0005)更高。
我们的荟萃分析表明,使用LF和LP治疗多节段CSM的大多数临床结局相似。然而,在神经麻痹并发症方面,LP被发现优于LF。这需要在更大样本量的前瞻性随机研究中进一步验证和研究。