Department of Orthopedics, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China; School of Basic Medicine, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Pain Physician. 2021 Jul;24(4):E381-E392.
New approaches and technologies can be beneficial for patients but also bring corresponding complications. Traditional pairwise meta-analyses cannot be used to comprehensively rank all surgical approaches.
The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the outcomes of different surgical approaches for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for multiple treatment comparisons of LDH.
The PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs comparing different surgical approaches for patients with LDH from inception to February 10, 2020. The Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to perform a hierarchical Bayesian NMA in WinBUGS version 1.4.3 using a random effects consistency model. The primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were complications and reoperation. The PROSPERO number was CRD42020179406.
A total of 22 trials including 2529 patients and all 5 different approaches (open discectomy or microdiscectomy [OD/MD], microendoscopic discectomy [MED], percutaneous endoscopic discectomy [PED], percutaneous discectomy [PD], and tubular discectomy [TD]) were retrospectively retrieved. PED had the best efficacy in improving patients' dysfunction with no statistical significance (probability = 50%). PD was significantly worse than OD/MD, MED, and PED in relieving patients' pain (standardized mean differences: 0.87 [0.03, 1.76], 0.94 [0.06, 1.88], and 1.02 [0.13, 1.94], respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between any 2 surgical approaches in dural tear; intraoperative, postoperative, and overall complications; or reoperation rate. PED had the lowest dural tear rate and the lowest intraoperative and overall complication rates (probability = 51%, 67%, and 33%, respectively). TD had the lowest postoperative complication and reoperation rates (probability = 35% and 39%, respectively).
The limitations of this NMA include the inconsistent follow-up times, the criteria for complications, and the reasons for reoperation.
Compared with other approaches used to treat LDH, PED had the best safety and efficacy in general, and TD had the lowest reoperation rate. Finally, we recommended PED for LDH.
新方法和技术可能对患者有益,但也会带来相应的并发症。传统的两两荟萃分析无法全面比较所有手术方法。
本系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA)旨在比较不同手术方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的结局。
比较 LDH 多种治疗比较的 NMA 随机对照试验(RCT)。
从建库至 2020 年 2 月 10 日,检索 PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE、Ovid 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,以比较不同手术方法治疗 LDH 患者的 RCT。采用 Markov 链蒙特卡罗方法,在 WinBUGS 版本 1.4.3 中使用随机效应一致性模型进行分层贝叶斯 NMA。主要结局是残疾和疼痛强度。次要结局是并发症和再次手术。PROSPERO 编号为 CRD42020179406。
共检索到 22 项试验,包括 2529 例患者,涉及所有 5 种不同方法(开放式椎间盘切除术或微创手术[OD/MD]、微内窥镜椎间盘切除术[MED]、经皮内镜椎间盘切除术[PED]、经皮椎间盘切除术[PD]和管状椎间盘切除术[TD])。PED 在改善患者功能障碍方面效果最好,但无统计学意义(概率=50%)。PD 在缓解患者疼痛方面明显差于 OD/MD、MED 和 PED(标准化均数差:0.87[0.03,1.76]、0.94[0.06,1.88]和 1.02[0.13,1.94])。任何两种手术方法在硬脊膜撕裂、术中、术后和总并发症以及再次手术率方面均无统计学差异。PED 的硬脊膜撕裂率最低,术中及总并发症发生率最低(概率分别为 51%、67%和 33%)。TD 的术后并发症和再次手术率最低(概率分别为 35%和 39%)。
本 NMA 的局限性包括随访时间不一致、并发症标准和再次手术原因。
与其他治疗 LDH 的方法相比,PED 总体上具有最佳的安全性和疗效,而 TD 的再次手术率最低。最后,我们建议采用 PED 治疗 LDH。