de Meldau Benites Vinicius, Pereira Filho Aécio Rubens Dias, Consani Guilherme Chamorro, de Campos Pedro Rafael, Baptista Vinicius Santos, Mussalem Matheus Galvão Valadares Bertolini, Carneiro Júnior Francisco Cialdine Frota
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Instituto de Acessos à coluna Aécio Dias, R. Capitão Messias, 99, 6 th floor, São Paulo, SP, 05004-020, Brazil.
Neurosurg Rev. 2025 May 7;48(1):404. doi: 10.1007/s10143-025-03553-7.
This study analyzes data comparing anterior and posterior selective instrumentation to determine the optimal surgical approach for Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis correction. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. We consulted the databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and Embase on January 20th, 2024. We included cohort, case-control, and clinical trial studies involving patients aged 21 or younger with Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis (JIS) treated with selective instrumentation, comparing anterior and posterior approaches. We excluded studies with combined anterior and posterior instrumentation, thoracoscopic-assisted approaches, and vertebral body tethering. We assessed the studies' risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our meta-analyses compared Cobb angle correction rates and secondary intra- and postoperative outcomes. The analysis included 15 cohort studies (928 patients) 514 underwent anterior instrumentation and 414 posterior instrumentation. No deaths occurred. The average operative time was 260.7 minutes for anterior and 190.4 minutes for posterior procedures. Average blood loss was 398.4 mL (anterior) and 413.4 mL (posterior). Cobb angle correction rates were 61.7% (anterior) and 66% (posterior). Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences in Cobb angle correction rates between groups (p = 0.774, 95% CI: -0.331 to 0.444; p = 0.365, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.62). Anterior and posterior selective instrumentation achieve similar Cobb angle correction rates, and the choice for JIS in patients under 21 years remains highly individualized. Both approaches show comparable outcomes in correction, bleeding, and SRS-22 scores. Posterior instrumentation reduces operative time and hospital stays, while anterior instrumentation requires fewer instrumented vertebrae. The lack of clinical trials and incomplete outcome reporting may limit some analyses, though supplementary meta-analyses mitigated these constraints.
本研究分析了比较前路和后路选择性内固定的数据,以确定青少年特发性脊柱侧凸矫正的最佳手术方法。系统评价和荟萃分析。我们于2024年1月20日查阅了MEDLINE、CENTRAL、LILACS和Embase数据库。我们纳入了队列研究、病例对照研究和临床试验研究,这些研究涉及21岁及以下接受选择性内固定治疗的青少年特发性脊柱侧凸(JIS)患者,比较前路和后路手术方法。我们排除了采用前后联合内固定、胸腔镜辅助手术方法和椎体束缚术的研究。我们使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估研究的偏倚风险。我们的荟萃分析比较了Cobb角矫正率以及术中及术后的次要结果。该分析包括15项队列研究(928例患者),514例行前路内固定,414例行后路内固定。无死亡病例。前路手术的平均手术时间为260.7分钟,后路手术为190.4分钟。平均失血量为398.4 mL(前路)和413.4 mL(后路)。Cobb角矫正率分别为61.7%(前路)和66%(后路)。荟萃分析显示两组之间的Cobb角矫正率无显著差异(p = 0.774,95%CI:-0.331至0.444;p = 0.365,95%CI:-0.23至0.62)。前路和后路选择性内固定的Cobb角矫正率相似,21岁以下患者的JIS治疗选择仍高度个体化。两种方法在矫正、出血和SRS-22评分方面显示出相似的结果。后路内固定可缩短手术时间和住院时间,而前路内固定所需的固定椎体较少。尽管补充荟萃分析减轻了这些限制,但缺乏临床试验和不完整的结果报告可能会限制一些分析。