Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Hospital De Base, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 May 1;46(9):E542-E550. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003826.
A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the load-sharing classification (LSC) is reliable to predict the best surgical approach for thoracolumbar burst fracture (TBF).
There is no previous review evaluating the efficacy of the use of LSC as a guide in the surgical treatment of burst fractures.
On April 19th, 2019, a broad search was performed in the following databases: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, SCOPUS, Web of Science, LILACS, and gray literature. This study was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. We included clinical trials involving patients with TBF undergoing posterior surgical treatment, classified by load-sharing score, and that enabled the analysis of the outcomes loss of segmental kyphosis and implant failure (IF). We performed random- or fixed-effects models meta-analyses depending on the data homogeneity. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated by I2 and τ2 statistics.
The search identified 189 references, out of which nine studies were eligible for this review. All articles presenting LSC up to 6 proved to be reliable in indicating that only posterior instrumentation is necessary, without screw failures or loss of kyphosis correction. For cases where the LSC was >6, only 2.5% of the individuals presented IF upon posterior approach alone. For loss of kyphosis correction, only 5% of patients had this outcome where LSC >6. For both outcomes together, we had 6% of postoperative problems (I2 = 77%, τ2 < 0.0015, P < 0.01).
Load-sharing scores up to 6 are 100% reliable, only requiring posterior instrumentation for stabilization. For scores >6, the risk of implant breakage and loss of kyphosis correction in posterior fixation alone is low. Thus, other factors should be considered to define the best surgical approach to be adopted.Level of Evidence: 1.
对随机临床试验进行系统评价和单臂荟萃分析。
本研究旨在评估负荷分担分类(LSC)是否可用于预测胸腰椎爆裂骨折(TBF)的最佳手术入路。
尚无先前的综述评估 LSC 在爆裂骨折手术治疗中的应用效果。
2019 年 4 月 19 日,在以下数据库中进行了广泛搜索:EMBASE、PubMed、Cochrane、SCOPUS、Web of Science、LILACS 和灰色文献。本研究在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库中进行了注册。我们纳入了接受后路手术治疗的 TBF 患者的临床试验,这些患者根据负荷分担评分进行分类,并能够分析节段性后凸丢失和植入物失败(IF)的结果。我们根据数据的同质性进行了随机或固定效应模型荟萃分析。通过 I2 和 τ2 统计量估计研究之间的异质性。
搜索共确定了 189 篇参考文献,其中 9 项研究符合本综述的纳入标准。所有报道 LSC 评分的文章均证明在指示仅需要后路器械固定时是可靠的,不会出现螺钉失败或后凸矫正丢失。对于 LSC >6 的病例,仅单独后路入路的个体中 2.5%发生 IF。对于后凸矫正丢失,LSC >6 的患者中仅 5%出现这种结果。对于这两个结果,我们术后问题的发生率为 6%(I2 = 77%,τ2 < 0.0015,P < 0.01)。
LSC 评分最高可达 6 分,仅需后路器械固定即可达到稳定效果。对于评分 >6 的病例,单独后路固定时植入物断裂和后凸矫正丢失的风险较低。因此,应考虑其他因素来确定采用的最佳手术入路。
1 级。