Department of Orthopaedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Haidian District, Beijing.
Department of Spine, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China.
Clin Spine Surg. 2021 May 1;34(4):132-142. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001069.
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis study.
To compare the efficacy, long-term stability, and safety of combined anterior-posterior spinal fusion (APSF) with posterior-only spinal fusion (PSF) in treating dystrophic neurofibromatosis scoliosis with the use of modern instrumentation.
When the Harrington or Luque technique was used, APSF had relatively reliable results and had been recommended by many authors. But with the development of instrumentation and techniques, many surgeons performed PSF with satisfactory results. No systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted to compare the outcomes of the 2 approaches.
Relevant studies on anterior-posterior or posterior fusion of dystrophic neurofibromatosis scoliosis were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Springer Link, and Google Scholar databases. Then studies were manually selected for inclusion based on predefined criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted, and a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
Sixteen eligible studies were included. The angles of scoliosis curves and kyphosis curves were significantly and similarly corrected after surgery in both APSF and PSF group, respectively. At the last follow-up, the loss of correction was significant in the coronal plane but not in the sagittal plane with a similar progression of scoliosis in 2 groups. The overall complication rate was slightly higher in the APSF group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Meanwhile, there was no visible difference in the incidence of pseudarthrosis and instrumentation failures between the 2 groups.
APSF and PSF by means of the third-generation spinal instrumentation system have similar efficacy, long-term stability, and safety for treating dystrophic scoliosis secondary to type-1 neurofibromatosis.
Level III-systematic review and meta-analysis study.
这是一项系统评价和荟萃分析研究。
比较使用现代内固定器械治疗营养不良型神经纤维瘤病脊柱侧凸时,前路-后路脊柱融合术(APSF)与后路脊柱融合术(PSF)的疗效、长期稳定性和安全性。
当使用哈林顿或路奎技术时,APSF 具有相对可靠的结果,并得到了许多作者的推荐。但是,随着器械和技术的发展,许多外科医生进行 PSF 取得了满意的效果。目前还没有系统评价和荟萃分析来比较这两种方法的结果。
从 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、Springer Link 和 Google Scholar 数据库中检索到有关营养不良型神经纤维瘤病脊柱侧凸前路-后路或后路融合的相关研究。然后根据预先设定的标准手动选择纳入的研究。进行数据提取和质量评估,并进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
纳入了 16 项符合条件的研究。APSF 和 PSF 组术后脊柱侧凸和后凸角度均得到显著且相似的矫正。在末次随访时,冠状面的矫正丢失明显,但矢状面没有,两组脊柱侧凸的进展相似。APSF 组的总体并发症发生率略高,但差异无统计学意义。同时,两组假关节和器械失败的发生率无明显差异。
使用第三代脊柱内固定系统的 APSF 和 PSF 治疗 1 型神经纤维瘤病继发的营养不良性脊柱侧凸具有相似的疗效、长期稳定性和安全性。
III 级——系统评价和荟萃分析研究。