Suppr超能文献

经皮内窥镜下颈椎间盘切除术治疗神经根型颈椎病的单入路与双入路的临床疗效及并发症的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications of biportal and uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Center of Obesity and Metabolic Diseases, Department of General Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

出版信息

Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2024 Aug 14;35(3):583-593. doi: 10.52312/jdrs.2024.1820.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopy (PE) in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted up to April 2024 across multiple databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data, focusing on clinical studies that compare UBE with PE for posterior foraminotomy and discectomy decompression in CSR. The meta-analysis was performed with an emphasis on evaluating clinical outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, incision length, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain and arm pain, and complications.

RESULTS

Out of an initial 1,041 studies identified from electronic databases, eight were deemed eligible based on title, abstract, and full-text screening. These studies involved 552 patients (269 males, 283 females; mean age: 53.9±11.4 years; range, 30 to 79 years), with 287 in the UBE group and 265 in the PE group. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in operation time between UBE and PE (mean difference [MD]=-3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]:-19.38, 12.02; p=0.65). However, both blood loss (MD=17.01; 95% CI: 2.61, 31.41; p=0.02) and incision length (MD=11.62; 95% CI: 9.23, 14.01; p<0.00001) were significantly lower in the PE group compared to the UBE group. Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of NDI (MD=0.12; 95% CI:-0.10, 0.34; 0.28), VAS for neck pain (MD=-0.06; 95% CI:-0.19, 0.06; p=0.32), VAS for arm pain (MD=-0.14; 95% CI:-0.26, -0.01; p=0.84), or complications (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.54, 2.10; p=0.85).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that there are no significant disparities in clinical outcomes between UBE and PE, encompassing NDI, VAS for arm pain, and VAS for neck pain, as well as complication rates. Notably, compared to PE, UBE results in increased bleeding and longer incision lengths when treating CSR, without substantially reducing operation time.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较单侧双通道内镜(UBE)与经皮内镜(PE)治疗神经根型颈椎病(CSR)的临床疗效和并发症发生率。

材料与方法

截至 2024 年 4 月,我们通过 EMBASE、PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、中国知网和万方数据在内的多个数据库,全面检索了比较 CSR 后路椎间孔切开术和椎间盘切除术的 UBE 与 PE 的临床研究文献。我们着重对手术时间、出血量、切口长度、颈部残疾指数(NDI)、颈部和手臂疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分以及并发症等临床结局进行了荟萃分析。

结果

从电子数据库中初筛出 1041 项研究,经过标题、摘要和全文筛选,最终有 8 项研究符合纳入标准。这些研究共纳入 552 例患者(269 例男性,283 例女性;平均年龄:53.9±11.4 岁;年龄范围 30 至 79 岁),其中 UBE 组 287 例,PE 组 265 例。荟萃分析结果显示,UBE 与 PE 之间的手术时间无显著差异(平均差值 [MD]=-3.68;95%置信区间 [CI]:-19.38,12.02;p=0.65)。但是,UBE 组的出血量(MD=17.01;95% CI:2.61,31.41;p=0.02)和切口长度(MD=11.62;95% CI:9.23,14.01;p<0.00001)均显著短于 PE 组。在临床结局方面,两组间 NDI(MD=0.12;95% CI:-0.10,0.34;0.28)、颈部 VAS 评分(MD=-0.06;95% CI:-0.19,0.06;p=0.32)、手臂 VAS 评分(MD=-0.14;95% CI:-0.26,-0.01;p=0.84)或并发症发生率(OR=1.07;95% CI:0.54,2.10;p=0.85)均无显著差异。

结论

我们的研究结果表明,UBE 与 PE 在临床结局方面(包括 NDI、手臂和颈部疼痛 VAS 评分以及并发症发生率)无显著差异,而 UBE 组的出血量和切口长度虽大于 PE 组,但手术时间并未明显缩短。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d4ea/11411877/199db6f96ead/JDRS-2024-35-3-583-593-F1.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