Zheng Bin, Zhu Zhenqi, Ding Jianfeng, Li Gen, Liang Yan, Guo Chen, Zhu Shuaiqi, Liu Haiying
Spine Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Department of Cardiology, Shangyu People's Hospital of Shaoxing, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
World Neurosurg. 2024 Dec;192:98-108. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.09.011. Epub 2024 Sep 11.
To evaluate efficacy and safety between C3 laminectomy + open-door laminoplasty and open-door laminoplasty alone.
Electronic databases were systematically searched up to January 2024. Review Manager 5.4 was applied to manage the data and perform the review. Cochrane Library, PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing C3 laminectomy + open-door laminoplasty and open-door laminoplasty alone. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group.
After selection, 9 eligible articles included 10 comparison groups, with a combined 320 patients who underwent C3 laminectomy + open-door laminoplasty and 355 who underwent open-door laminoplasty alone. There was no difference in operative time, blood volume, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association recovery score, visual analog scale score, Neck Disability Index, complications, axial symptoms, T1 slope, range of motion, and cervical sagittal vertical axis. C3 laminectomy + open-door laminoplasty was superior in C2-C7 Cobb angle.
Although C3 laminectomy + open-door laminoplasty has theoretic advantages, meta-analysis results show that the 2 surgical procedures are similar in terms of clinical symptoms improvement, sagittal balance, and complications. C3 laminectomy combined + open-door laminoplasty is superior only in the preservation of cervical lordosis. The limited number of studies may affect the reliability and generalizability of the results. Future high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to verify efficacy and safety.
评估C3椎板切除术+开门式椎板成形术与单纯开门式椎板成形术之间的疗效和安全性。
系统检索截至2024年1月的电子数据库。应用Review Manager 5.4管理数据并进行综述。检索Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、OVID和Web of Science,查找比较C3椎板切除术+开门式椎板成形术与单纯开门式椎板成形术的研究。为每个分析组构建森林图。
筛选后,9篇符合条件的文章包括10个比较组,共有320例患者接受了C3椎板切除术+开门式椎板成形术,355例患者接受了单纯开门式椎板成形术。手术时间、出血量、日本骨科协会评分、日本骨科协会恢复评分、视觉模拟量表评分、颈部功能障碍指数、并发症、轴性症状、T1斜率、活动范围和颈椎矢状垂直轴方面无差异。C3椎板切除术+开门式椎板成形术在C2-C7 Cobb角方面更具优势。
尽管C3椎板切除术+开门式椎板成形术具有理论上的优势,但荟萃分析结果表明,这两种手术在临床症状改善、矢状面平衡和并发症方面相似。C3椎板切除术联合开门式椎板成形术仅在维持颈椎前凸方面更具优势。研究数量有限可能会影响结果的可靠性和普遍性。未来需要高质量、多中心的随机对照试验来验证疗效和安全性。