Comparing Outcomes of Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurospine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-31 DOI:10.14245/ns.2347078.539
Guang-Xun Lin, Li-Ru He, Jin-Niang Nan, Wen-Bin Xu, Keyi Xiao, Zhiqiang Que, Shang-Wun Jhang, Chien-Min Chen, Ming-Tao Zhu, Gang Rui
{"title":"Comparing Outcomes of Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Guang-Xun Lin, Li-Ru He, Jin-Niang Nan, Wen-Bin Xu, Keyi Xiao, Zhiqiang Que, Shang-Wun Jhang, Chien-Min Chen, Ming-Tao Zhu, Gang Rui","doi":"10.14245/ns.2347078.539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis aims to refine the understanding of the optimal choice between different cage shapes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by systematically comparing perioperative data, radiological outcomes, clinical results, and complications associated with banana-shaped and straight bullet cages.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meticulous literature search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang Data was executed up to October 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing banana-shaped and straight bullet cages in TLIF. The quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for nonrandomized studies. Rigorous evaluations were performed for radiographic outcomes, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were meticulously evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis incorporated 7 studies, involving 573 patients (297 with banana-shaped cages, 276 with straight cages), all with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, or hospitalization between the 2 cage shapes. Banana-shaped cages exhibited greater changes in DH (p = 0.001), SL (p = 0.02), and LL (p = 0.01). Despite statistically higher changes in ODI for straight cages (26.33, p < 0.0001), the actual value remained similar to banana-shaped cages (26.15). Both cage types demonstrated similar efficacy in VAS, complication rates, subsidence, and fusion rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although banana-shaped cages can excel in restoring DH, SL, and LL, straight bullet cages can provide comparable functional improvements, pain relief, and complication rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":19269,"journal":{"name":"Neurospine","volume":" ","pages":"261-272"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10992667/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurospine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2347078.539","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This meta-analysis aims to refine the understanding of the optimal choice between different cage shapes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by systematically comparing perioperative data, radiological outcomes, clinical results, and complications associated with banana-shaped and straight bullet cages.

Methods: A meticulous literature search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang Data was executed up to October 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing banana-shaped and straight bullet cages in TLIF. The quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for nonrandomized studies. Rigorous evaluations were performed for radiographic outcomes, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were meticulously evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications.

Results: The analysis incorporated 7 studies, involving 573 patients (297 with banana-shaped cages, 276 with straight cages), all with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, or hospitalization between the 2 cage shapes. Banana-shaped cages exhibited greater changes in DH (p = 0.001), SL (p = 0.02), and LL (p = 0.01). Despite statistically higher changes in ODI for straight cages (26.33, p < 0.0001), the actual value remained similar to banana-shaped cages (26.15). Both cage types demonstrated similar efficacy in VAS, complication rates, subsidence, and fusion rates.

Conclusion: Although banana-shaped cages can excel in restoring DH, SL, and LL, straight bullet cages can provide comparable functional improvements, pain relief, and complication rates.

比较经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病中香蕉型和直型固定架的疗效:系统回顾与元分析》。
目的:本荟萃分析旨在通过系统比较香蕉型和直球型椎间融合器的围手术期数据、放射学结果、临床效果以及相关并发症,进一步了解经椎间孔腰椎间盘融合术(TLIF)中不同形状椎笼的最佳选择:截至 2023 年 10 月 5 日,对 PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、中国知网和万方数据进行了细致的文献检索。纳入标准主要是比较 TLIF 中香蕉型和直球笼的研究。对于非随机研究,采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)等适当工具对纳入研究的质量进行评估。对放射学结果进行了严格评估,包括椎间盘高度、节段前凸、腰椎前凸、下陷和融合率。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Oswestry 失能指数(ODI)和并发症对临床结果进行了细致的评估:分析纳入了七项研究,涉及 573 名患者(297 名患者使用香蕉型椎笼,276 名患者使用直线型椎笼),所有研究的 NOS 评级均超过 5 星级。两种形状的手术笼在手术时间、失血量或住院时间上没有明显的统计学差异。香蕉型椎板笼在椎间盘高度(P=0.001)、节段前凸(P=0.02)和腰椎前凸(P=0.01)方面的变化更大。尽管香蕉型椎间孔镜能很好地恢复椎间盘高度、节段前凸和腰椎前凸,但直弹型椎间孔镜也能提供类似的功能改善、疼痛缓解和并发症发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurospine
Neurospine Multiple-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
93
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信