Peng Cong, Luan Haopeng, Liu Kai, Song Xinghua
Department of Spine Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Department of Trauma and Microreconstructive Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Global Spine J. 2024 Jun;14(5):1650-1663. doi: 10.1177/21925682231224393. Epub 2024 Jan 19.
Systematic review.
To compare the efficacy of the posterior approach and combined anterior-posterior approach in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with cervical spine fracture by meta-analysis.
The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies on the comparison of the posterior approach group and the combined anterior-posterior approach group in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis combined with cervical spine fracture from database establishment to August 2023. The procedure time, intraoperative blood loss, the rates of neurological improvement, mean change in the postoperative neurological function, complication rates, rates of revised surgery, and mortality were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by Cochrane Library.
A total of 11 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 215 patients were included in this study. The posterior approach group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the combined anterior-posterior approach group [Mean difference (MD) = -146.05, 95%CI(-187.40,-104.69), < .00001]; the operation time was significantly less in the posterior approach group than in the combined anterior-posterior approach group [MD = -95.34, 95%CI(-113.13,-77.55), < .00001]. There were no statistically significant differences in the neurological improvement rates, mean changes in postoperative neurological function, complication rates, modified surgery rates, and mortality rates.
Both the posterior approach and combined anterior and posterior approach can achieve good results. Clinicians should develop an individualized approach based on the patient's fracture type, degree of spinal cord injury, fracture stability, fracture dislocation, general condition, and underlying disease.
系统评价。
通过荟萃分析比较后路手术与前后联合手术治疗强直性脊柱炎合并颈椎骨折的疗效。
检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,查找从数据库建立至2023年8月关于后路手术组与前后联合手术组治疗强直性脊柱炎合并颈椎骨折的比较研究。提取手术时间、术中出血量、神经功能改善率、术后神经功能平均变化、并发症发生率、翻修手术率和死亡率。使用Cochrane图书馆提供的RevMan 5.4软件进行荟萃分析。
本研究共纳入11项回顾性队列研究,共215例患者。后路手术组术中出血量低于前后联合手术组[平均差(MD)= -146.05,95%置信区间(-187.40,-104.69),P<0.00001];后路手术组手术时间显著短于前后联合手术组[MD = -95.34,95%置信区间(-113.13,-77.55),P<0.00001]。神经功能改善率、术后神经功能平均变化、并发症发生率、翻修手术率和死亡率差异均无统计学意义。
后路手术和前后联合手术均可取得良好效果。临床医生应根据患者的骨折类型、脊髓损伤程度、骨折稳定性、骨折脱位情况、一般状况和基础疾病制定个体化治疗方案。