Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for intraspinal tumors: a meta-analysis based on 15 observational studies.

IF 2.8 3区医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research Pub Date : 2024-12-26 DOI:10.1186/s13018-024-05395-3

Chuanhui Xun, Haonan Li, Yukun Hu, Shutao Gao, Jianlin Xu, Yanlong Wang, Ting Wang, Weibin Sheng

{"title":"Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for intraspinal tumors: a meta-analysis based on 15 observational studies.","authors":"Chuanhui Xun, Haonan Li, Yukun Hu, Shutao Gao, Jianlin Xu, Yanlong Wang, Ting Wang, Weibin Sheng","doi":"10.1186/s13018-024-05395-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This study compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for patients with intraspinal tumors.Methods: 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.Results: 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).Conclusion: 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.","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"883"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11670379/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-05395-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for patients with intraspinal tumors.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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).

Conclusion: 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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

7.70%

发文量

494

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues. Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications. JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.