颈椎轴下损伤手术:前路、后路还是前后联合路?

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Asian Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-21 DOI:10.31616/asj.2023.0266
Abdul Hafid Bajamal, Eko Agus Subagio, Pandu Wicaksono, I Gusti Made Aswin Rahmadi Ranuh, Muhammad Faris, Budi Utomo
{"title":"颈椎轴下损伤手术:前路、后路还是前后联合路?","authors":"Abdul Hafid Bajamal, Eko Agus Subagio, Pandu Wicaksono, I Gusti Made Aswin Rahmadi Ranuh, Muhammad Faris, Budi Utomo","doi":"10.31616/asj.2023.0266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior-posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35-3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of -42.84 (95% CI, -64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); -212.91 (95% CI, -417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11366557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgery for subaxial cervical spine injuries: which is better: anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior combined approach?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Abdul Hafid Bajamal, Eko Agus Subagio, Pandu Wicaksono, I Gusti Made Aswin Rahmadi Ranuh, Muhammad Faris, Budi Utomo\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2023.0266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior-posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35-3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of -42.84 (95% CI, -64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); -212.91 (95% CI, -417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11366557/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2023.0266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2023.0266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前路和后路两种方法在良好的临床效果方面差异不大,各有利弊。本综述旨在为颈椎轴下损伤的最佳治疗方法提供证据,并讨论临床疗效和并发症。通过电子方式从PubMed、Medline、ScienceDirect、Cochrane图书馆和其他互联网数据库中检索了关于颈椎轴下损伤的前路与后路、前路与前后路(联合)方法的临床研究。临床改善、并发症发生率和死亡率无显著差异,前路与后路方法的几率比为1.09(95% 置信区间[CI],0.79-1.49;P=0.61),前路与联合方法的几率比为1.05(95% CI,0.35-3.18;P=0.93)。手术时间和失血量在前路组和后路组之间有显著差异,平均差异为 -42.84 (95% CI, -64.39 to 21.29; p)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgery for subaxial cervical spine injuries: which is better: anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior combined approach?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior-posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35-3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of -42.84 (95% CI, -64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); -212.91 (95% CI, -417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 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