Xun Chuanhui, Li Haonan, Hu Yukun, Gao Shutao, Xu Jianlin, Wang Yanlong, Wang Ting, Sheng Weibin
Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, 137 Liyushan Avenue, Xinshi District, Urumqi, 830054, Xinjiang, China.
Department of Operating Room, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urmuqi, 830054, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Dec 26;19(1):883. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05395-3.
This study compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for patients with intraspinal tumors.
A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. Continuous variables, including estimated blood loss, surgery duration, time to mobilization, length of hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and incision length, were reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Dichotomous variables, such as gross total resection, blood transfusion, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, and overall complications, were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.
Fifteen studies, comprising a total of 943 patients (488 in the MIS group and 455 in the OS group), met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated that MIS significantly reduced estimated blood loss (MD = -76.73, 95% CI -102.56 to -50.91, P < 0.01), incision length (MD = -4.09, 95% CI -5.20 to -2.97, P < 0.01), VAS score (MD = -0.79, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.11, P = 0.02), time to mobilization (MD = -4.27, 95% CI -5.12 to -3.43, P < 0.01), length of hospitalization, (MD = -3.94, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.84, P < 0.01), and overall complications (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, P < 0.01) compared with OS. No significant differences were observed in surgery duration (MD = -28.67, 95% CI -58.58 to 1.23, P = 0.06), gross total resection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07, P = 0.92), blood transfusion (RR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.04, P = 0.06), or CSF leakage (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04, P = 0.07).
Findings from this analysis suggest that MIS offers clinical advantages over OS in reducing blood loss, incision length, pain, time to mobilization, length of hospitalization, and overall complication rates.
本研究比较了微创手术(MIS)和开放手术(OS)治疗脊髓内肿瘤患者的临床疗效。
对PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、EMBASE、科学网、中国知网(CNKI)和万方数据库进行系统检索,以确定相关研究。连续变量,包括估计失血量、手术时间、活动时间、住院时间、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分和切口长度,以平均差(MD)及95%置信区间(95%CI)报告。二分变量,如全切、输血、脑脊液(CSF)漏和总体并发症,以风险比(RR)及95%CI呈现。使用RevMan 5.3进行荟萃分析。
15项研究共纳入943例患者(MIS组488例,OS组455例),符合纳入标准。荟萃分析表明,与OS相比,MIS显著减少了估计失血量(MD = -76.73,95%CI -102.56至-50.91,P < 0.01)、切口长度(MD = -4.09,95%CI -5.20至-2.97,P < 0.01)、VAS评分(MD = -0.79,95%CI -1.48至-0.11,P = 0.02)、活动时间(MD = -4.27,95%CI -5.12至-3.43,P < 0.01)、住院时间(MD = -3.94,95%CI -5.05至-2.84,P < 0.01)和总体并发症(RR = 0.40,95%CI 0.25至0.64,P < 0.01)。手术时间(MD = -28.67,95%CI -58.58至1.23,P = 0.06)、全切(RR = 1.00,95%CI 0.94至1.07,P = 0.92)、输血(RR = 0.23,95%CI 0.05至1.04,P = 0.06)或脑脊液漏(RR = 0.50,95%CI 0.24至1.04,P = 0.07)方面未观察到显著差异。
该分析结果表明,在减少失血量、切口长度、疼痛、活动时间、住院时间和总体并发症发生率方面,MIS比OS具有临床优势。