Suppr超能文献

经皮椎间孔镜下腰椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术的对比:文献回顾和荟萃分析。

Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Spine Centre, Hessing Foundation, Hessingstrasse 17, 86199, Augsburg, Germany.

出版信息

J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Jul 22;14(1):229. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1266-y.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a comparative, literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review and a meta-analysis. Lumbar interbody fusion is a well-established surgical procedure for treating several spinal disorders. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was initially introduced in the early 1980s. To reduce approach-related morbidity associated with traditional open TLIF (OTLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MITLIF) was developed. We aimed to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review.

METHODS

We searched the online database PubMed (2005-2017), which yielded an initial 194 studies. We first searched the articles' abstracts. Based on our inclusion criteria, we excluded 162 studies and included 32 studies: 18 prospective, 13 retrospective, and a single randomized controlled trial. Operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, radiation exposure time, complication rate, and pain scores (visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index) for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis for all outcomes showed reduced blood loss (P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001) for MITLIF compared with OTLIF, but with increased radiation exposure time with MITLIF (P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in operative time between techniques (P = 0.78). The complication rate was lower with MITLIF (11.3%) vs. OTLIF (14.2%), but not statistically significantly different (P = 0.05). No significant differences were found in visual analogue scores (back and leg) and Oswestry Disability Index scores between techniques, at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

MITLIF and OTLIF provide equivalent long-term clinical outcomes. MITLIF had less tissue injury, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. MITLIF is also a safe alternative in obese patients and, in experienced hands, can also be used safely in select cases of spondylodiscitis even with epidural abscess. MITLIF is also a cost-saving procedure associated with reduced hospital and social costs. Long-term studies are required to better evaluate controversial items such as operative time.

摘要

研究设计

本研究为对比文献回顾。

目的

本研究旨在通过文献回顾和荟萃分析,对经皮椎间孔腰椎间融合术(TLIF)与微创 TLIF(MITLIF)进行对比分析。腰椎间融合术是一种治疗多种脊柱疾病的成熟手术。经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(TLIF)于 20 世纪 80 年代初首次引入。为了降低传统开放 TLIF(OTLIF)相关的手术入路并发症,开发了微创 TLIF(MITLIF)。我们旨在通过文献回顾,对经皮椎间孔腰椎间融合术与微创 TLIF 进行对比分析。

方法

我们在在线数据库 PubMed(2005-2017 年)中进行了检索,得到了最初的 194 项研究。我们首先搜索了文章的摘要。根据我们的纳入标准,排除了 162 项研究,纳入了 32 项研究:18 项前瞻性研究,13 项回顾性研究和 1 项随机对照试验。记录了两种技术的手术时间、失血量、住院时间、放射暴露时间、并发症发生率和疼痛评分(视觉模拟评分、Oswestry 功能障碍指数),并以平均值表示。然后我们进行了荟萃分析。

结果

所有结局的荟萃分析显示,与 OTLIF 相比,MITLIF 可减少失血量(P<0.00001)和住院时间(P<0.00001),但 MITLIF 放射暴露时间增加(P<0.00001)。两种技术的手术时间无显著差异(P=0.78)。MITLIF 的并发症发生率(11.3%)低于 OTLIF(14.2%),但差异无统计学意义(P=0.05)。两种技术在最终随访时的视觉模拟评分(背部和腿部)和 Oswestry 功能障碍指数评分均无显著差异。

结论

MITLIF 和 OTLIF 提供了等效的长期临床结果。MITLIF 对组织的损伤更小,失血量和住院时间更少。MITLIF 也是肥胖患者的一种安全选择,在有经验的医生手中,即使有硬膜外脓肿,在选择的椎间盘炎病例中也可以安全使用。MITLIF 也是一种节省成本的手术,可降低医院和社会成本。需要进行长期研究以更好地评估手术时间等有争议的项目。

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