Southeast University Medical College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Department of Spine Surgery, ZhongDa Hospital, Southeast University Medical College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
World Neurosurg. 2022 Aug;164:310-322. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.05.119. Epub 2022 Jun 1.
The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between the mini-open Wiltse approach with pedicle screw fixation (MWPSF) and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) in treating neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures.
We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials and retrospective comparative studies assessing these important indexes of the 2 methods using Review Manager, version 5.4. The clinical outcomes are presented as the risk difference for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference for continuous outcomes with the 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ test and I statistics. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42021290078).
Two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies were included in the present analysis. The percutaneous approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss compared with the mini-open Wiltse approach. No significant differences were found in the total length of the incisions, hospitalization time, postoperative visual analog scale scores, postoperative Oswestry disability index, postoperative Cobb angle, postoperative Cobb angle correction, postoperative Cobb angle correction loss, accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement, and postoperative complications between MWPSF and PPSF. However, the incidence of facet joint violation was significantly higher in the PPSF group. In addition, MWPSF was associated with a shorter operative time, shorter intraoperative fluoroscopy time, lower hospitalization costs, better postoperative vertebral body angle and percentage of vertebral body height compared with PPSF.
Both MWPSF and PPSF are safe and effective treatments of neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures. Nevertheless, our results have indicated that MWPSF might be the better choice, because it has a shorter learning curve and decreased facet joint violation, operative time, hospitalization costs, and radiation exposure. In addition, MWPSF was associated with better improvement of the postoperative vertebral body angle and percentage of vertebral body height.
本研究旨在比较微创 Wiltse 入路与经皮椎弓根螺钉固定(MWPSF)治疗神经完整胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效和并发症。
我们全面检索了 PubMed、Web of Science、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆,并使用 Review Manager 5.4 对所有评估这两种方法的重要指标的随机对照试验和回顾性比较研究进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。临床结果以二分类结局的风险差和连续结局的均数差表示,置信区间为 95%。采用 χ 检验和 I ² 统计量评估异质性。该研究已在 PROSPERO(CRD 42021290078)注册。
本分析纳入了 2 项随机对照试验和 6 项回顾性队列研究。与微创 Wiltse 入路相比,经皮入路术中出血量较少。MWPSF 与 PPSF 组在切口总长度、住院时间、术后视觉模拟评分、术后 Oswestry 功能障碍指数、术后 Cobb 角、术后 Cobb 角矫正、术后 Cobb 角矫正丢失、椎弓根螺钉放置准确率和术后并发症方面无显著差异。然而,PPSF 组关节突关节损伤的发生率明显更高。此外,MWPSF 与 PPSF 相比,手术时间更短、术中透视时间更短、住院费用更低、术后椎体角度和椎体高度百分比改善更好。
MWPSF 和 PPSF 均是治疗神经完整胸腰椎骨折的安全有效的方法。然而,我们的结果表明,MWPSF 可能是更好的选择,因为它具有较短的学习曲线,减少了关节突关节损伤、手术时间、住院费用和辐射暴露。此外,MWPSF 与术后椎体角度和椎体高度百分比的改善更好相关。