Suppr超能文献

前路寰椎螺钉与后路寰枢融合术治疗寰椎骨折的疗效比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Outcomes following anterior odontoid screw versus posterior arthrodesis for odontoid fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

1Department of Neurosurgery, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois; and.

2Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York.

出版信息

J Neurosurg Spine. 2023 May 5;39(2):196-205. doi: 10.3171/2023.3.SPINE221001. Print 2023 Aug 1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Odontoid fractures can be managed surgically when indicated. The most common approaches are anterior dens screw (ADS) fixation and posterior C1-C2 arthrodesis (PA). Each approach has theoretical advantages, but the optimal surgical approach remains controversial. The goal in this study was to systematically review the literature and synthesize outcomes including fusion rates, technical failures, reoperation, and 30-day mortality associated with ADS versus PA for odontoid fractures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 22 studies comprising 963 patients (ADS 527, PA 436) were included. The average age of the patients ranged from 28 to 81.2 years across the included studies. The majority of the odontoid fractures were type II based on the Anderson-D'Alonzo classification. The ADS group was associated with statistically significantly lower odds to achieve bony fusion at last follow-up compared to the PA group (ADS 84.1%; PA 92.3%; OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23-0.91; I2 42.6%). The ADS group was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of reoperation compared to the PA group (ADS 12.4%; PA 5.2%; OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.50-4.35; I2 0%). The rates of technical failure (ADS 2.3%; PA 1.1%; OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.52-2.37; I2 0%) and all-cause mortality (ADS 6%; PA 4.8%; OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67-2.74; I2 0%) were similar between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis of patients > 60 years old, the ADS was associated with statistically significantly lower odds of fusion compared to the PA group (ADS 72.4%; PA 89.9%; OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06-0.91; I2 58.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

ADS fixation is associated with statistically significantly lower odds of fusion at last follow-up and higher odds of reoperation compared to PA. No differences were identified in the rates of technical failure and all-cause mortality. Patients receiving ADS fixation at > 60 years old had significantly higher and lower odds of reoperation and fusion, respectively, compared to the PA group. PA is preferred to ADS fixation for odontoid fractures, with a stronger effect size for patients > 60 years old.

摘要

目的

当有指征时,牙状突骨折可以通过手术进行治疗。最常见的方法是前路齿状突螺钉(ADS)固定和后路 C1-C2 融合术(PA)。每种方法都有理论上的优势,但最佳手术方法仍存在争议。本研究的目的是系统地回顾文献,并综合融合率、技术失败、再次手术和 30 天死亡率等结果,比较 ADS 与 PA 治疗齿状突骨折的效果。

方法

根据 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA)指南,通过检索 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 数据库进行系统的文献回顾。进行了随机效应荟萃分析,并使用 I2 统计量评估异质性。

结果

共纳入 22 项研究,包括 963 例患者(ADS 组 527 例,PA 组 436 例)。纳入研究的患者平均年龄为 28 至 81.2 岁。根据 Anderson-D'Alonzo 分类,大多数齿状突骨折为 II 型。与 PA 组相比,ADS 组在末次随访时达到骨性融合的可能性显著降低(ADS 组 84.1%;PA 组 92.3%;OR 0.46;95%CI 0.23-0.91;I2 42.6%)。ADS 组再次手术的可能性显著高于 PA 组(ADS 组 12.4%;PA 组 5.2%;OR 2.56;95%CI 1.50-4.35;I2 0%)。技术失败率(ADS 组 2.3%;PA 组 1.1%;OR 1.11;95%CI 0.52-2.37;I2 0%)和全因死亡率(ADS 组 6%;PA 组 4.8%;OR 1.35;95%CI 0.67-2.74;I2 0%)在两组间相似。在>60 岁患者的亚组分析中,ADS 组与 PA 组相比,融合的可能性显著降低(ADS 组 72.4%;PA 组 89.9%;OR 0.24;95%CI 0.06-0.91;I2 58.7%)。

结论

与 PA 相比,ADS 固定治疗齿状突骨折在末次随访时融合的可能性显著降低,再次手术的可能性更高。技术失败率和全因死亡率无差异。接受 ADS 固定治疗的>60 岁患者再次手术和融合的可能性分别显著高于和低于 PA 组。对于齿状突骨折,PA 优于 ADS 固定,对于>60 岁的患者,效果更为显著。

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