Suppr超能文献

内镜下椎间盘切除术与开放显微椎间盘切除术及管状显微椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较:一项荟萃分析。

Outcomes of endoscopic discectomy compared with open microdiscectomy and tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniations: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Barber Sean M, Nakhla Jonathan, Konakondla Sanjay, Fridley Jared S, Oyelese Adetokunbo A, Gokaslan Ziya L, Telfeian Albert E

出版信息

J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Sep 6;31(6):802-815. doi: 10.3171/2019.6.SPINE19532. Print 2019 Dec 1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic discectomy (ED) has been advocated as a less-invasive alternative to open microdiscectomy (OM) and tubular microdiscectomy (TM) for lumbar disc herniations, with the potential to decrease postoperative pain and shorten recovery times. Large-scale, objective comparisons of outcomes between ED, OM, and TM, however, are lacking. The authors' objective in this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of ED, OM, and TM.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for articles published as of February 1, 2019, for comparative studies reporting outcomes of some combination of ED, OM, and TM. A meta-analysis of outcome parameters was performed assuming random effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies describing the outcomes of 2577 patients were included. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher with OM than with both TM (p = 0.01) and ED (p < 0.00001). Length of stay was significantly longer with OM than with ED (p < 0.00001). Return to work time was significantly longer in OM than with ED (p = 0.001). Postoperative leg (p = 0.02) and back (p = 0.01) VAS scores, and Oswestry Disability Index scores (p = 0.006) at latest follow-up were significantly higher for OM than for ED. Serum creatine phosphokinase (p = 0.02) and C-reactive protein (p < 0.00001) levels on postoperative day 1 were significantly higher with OM than with ED.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of TM and OM for lumbar disc herniations are largely equivalent. While this analysis demonstrated that several clinical variables were significantly improved in patients undergoing ED when compared with OM, the magnitude of many of these differences was small and of uncertain clinical relevance, and several of the included studies were retrospective and subject to a high risk of bias. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of the various surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniations.

摘要

目的

对于腰椎间盘突出症,内镜下椎间盘切除术(ED)已被提倡作为一种比开放式显微椎间盘切除术(OM)和管状显微椎间盘切除术(TM)侵入性更小的替代方法,具有减轻术后疼痛和缩短恢复时间的潜力。然而,缺乏对ED、OM和TM之间的结果进行大规模、客观的比较。本研究作者的目的是进行一项荟萃分析,比较ED、OM和TM的结果。

方法

检索截至2019年2月1日发表在PubMed数据库中的文章,以查找报告ED、OM和TM某种组合结果的比较研究。假设为随机效应,对结果参数进行荟萃分析。

结果

纳入了26项描述2577例患者结果的研究。OM的估计失血量显著高于TM(p = 0.01)和ED(p < 0.00001)。OM的住院时间显著长于ED(p < 0.00001)。OM的重返工作时间显著长于ED(p = 0.001)。在最新随访时,OM的术后腿部(p = 0.02)和背部(p = 0.01)视觉模拟评分(VAS)以及Oswestry功能障碍指数评分(p = 0.006)显著高于ED。术后第1天,OM的血清肌酸磷酸激酶(p = 0.02)和C反应蛋白(p < 0.00001)水平显著高于ED。

结论

TM和OM治疗腰椎间盘突出症的结果在很大程度上是等效的。虽然该分析表明与OM相比,接受ED的患者的几个临床变量有显著改善,但其中许多差异的幅度较小且临床相关性不确定,并且纳入的几项研究是回顾性的,存在较高的偏倚风险。在就各种腰椎间盘突出症手术治疗的比较疗效得出明确结论之前,需要进一步的高质量前瞻性研究。

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