Muthu Sathish, Viswanathan Vibhu Krishnan, Rodrigues-Pinto Ricardo, Cabrera Juan P, Ćorluka Stipe, Martin Christopher T, Collins Michael J, Agarwal Neha, Wu Yabin, Wang Jeffrey C, Meisel Hans Jörg, Buser Zorica
Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Dindigul, India.
Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, India.
Global Spine J. 2024 Feb;14(2_suppl):59S-69S. doi: 10.1177/21925682231154488. Epub 2023 Feb 1.
Network meta-analysis.
To compare the fusion outcome and complications of different 1 or 2-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) constructs performed with and without the application of autografts.
We performed an independent and duplicate search in electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus for relevant articles published between 2000 and 2020. We included comparative studies reporting fusion rate and complications with and without the use of autografts in ACDF across 5 different fusion constructs. A network meta-analysis was performed in Stata, categorized based on the type of fusion constructs utilized. Fusion constructs were ranked based on p-score approach and surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores. The confidence of results from the analysis was appraised with Cochrane's CINeMA approach.
A total of 2216 patients from 22-studies including 6 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 16 non-RCTs were included in network analysis. The mean age of included patients was 49.3 (±3.62) years. Based on our meta-analysis, we could conclude that use of autograft in 1- or 2-level ACDF did not affect the fusion and mechanical implant-related complications. The final fusion and mechanical complication rates were also not significantly different across the different fusion constructs. The use of plated constructs was associated with a significant increase in post-ACDF dysphagia rates [OR 3.42; 95%CI (.01,2.45)], as compared to stand-alone constructs analysed.
The choice of fusion constructs and use of autografts does not significantly affect the fusion and overall complication rates following 1 or 2-level ACDF surgery.
网状meta分析。
比较在有或没有应用自体骨移植的情况下,不同的单节段或双节段颈椎前路减压融合术(ACDF)结构的融合效果和并发症。
我们在包括PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane和Scopus在内的电子数据库中进行了独立且重复的检索,以查找2000年至2020年期间发表的相关文章。我们纳入了比较研究,这些研究报告了在5种不同融合结构的ACDF中使用和不使用自体骨移植时的融合率和并发症。在Stata中进行网状meta分析,并根据所使用的融合结构类型进行分类。融合结构根据p值法和累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)分数进行排名。采用Cochrane的CINeMA方法评估分析结果的可信度。
网络分析共纳入了来自22项研究的2216例患者,其中包括6项随机对照试验(RCT)和16项非RCT。纳入患者的平均年龄为49.3(±3.62)岁。基于我们的meta分析,我们可以得出结论,在单节段或双节段ACDF中使用自体骨移植不会影响融合以及与植入物机械相关的并发症。不同融合结构之间的最终融合率和机械并发症率也没有显著差异。与单独分析的结构相比,使用带钢板的结构与ACDF术后吞咽困难发生率的显著增加相关[比值比3.42;95%置信区间(.01,2.45)]。
融合结构的选择和自体骨移植的使用对单节段或双节段ACDF手术后的融合率和总体并发症率没有显著影响。