Suppr超能文献

经皮内镜颈椎间盘切除术治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), 54 Post and Telegraph Road Uptown, Hangzhou, 310000, China.

Department of First Clinical Medical College, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, 310000, China.

出版信息

J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Dec 1;17(1):519. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03365-1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34-59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = -2.55, 95% CI: - 3.25 to - 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = - 4.30, 95% CI: - 5.61 to - 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2-9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = - 3.22, 95% CI: - 5.21 to - 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI: - 2.67to - 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.96).

CONCLUSION

PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.

摘要

背景

由于目前尚无关于经皮内镜颈椎间盘切除术(PECD)疗效和安全性的系统循证医学数据,本荟萃分析汇总了报道 PECD 治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效或安全性的研究数据,以评估 PECD 治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效、复发率和安全性。

方法

我们检索了 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Library 数据库,以获取截至 2022 年 7 月发表的研究。纳入了 9 项非随机对照试验(非 RCT),报道了经皮内镜颈椎间盘切除术治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效或安全性。我们排除了重复发表的文献、无全文的文献、信息不完整的文献、无法进行数据提取的文献、动物实验和综述。使用 STATA 15.1 软件分析数据。

结果

PECD 治疗颈椎间盘突出症的优良治疗结果比例分别为 39%(95%CI:31-48%)和 47%(95%CI:34-59%)。荟萃分析结果显示,PECD 术后 1 周(SMD=-2.55,95%CI:-3.25 至-1.85)和末次随访时(SMD=-4.30,95%CI:-5.61 至-3.00)的视觉模拟评分(VAS)均显著低于术前评分。PECD 治疗颈椎间盘突出症后颈痛复发率和不良事件发生率分别为 3%(95%CI:1-6%)和 5%(95%CI:2-9%)。此外,荟萃分析结果显示,PECD 的手术时间(SMD=-3.22,95%CI:-5.21 至-1.43)和住院时间(SMD=-1.75,95%CI:-2.67 至-0.84)均显著低于 ACDF。荟萃分析结果还显示,PECD 的优良治疗结果比例显著高于 ACDF(OR=2.29,95%CI:1.06-4.96)。

结论

PECD 治疗 CHD 的成功率较高,能缓解颈痛,复发率和不良事件发生率较低。此外,与 ACDF 相比,PECD 的优良结局率更高,手术时间和住院时间更短。PECD 可能是治疗 CHD 的一种更好选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd5/9714009/4c0946ee8748/13018_2022_3365_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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