Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Sung Tan Cho, Ayush Sharma, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Meng-Huang Wu, Lo Cho Yau, Hyun-Jin Park, Ho-Jin Lee
{"title":"全内窥镜颈椎手术的临床结果和患者观点:一项系统综述。","authors":"Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Sung Tan Cho, Ayush Sharma, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Meng-Huang Wu, Lo Cho Yau, Hyun-Jin Park, Ho-Jin Lee","doi":"10.14245/ns.2449086.534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":19269,"journal":{"name":"Neurospine","volume":"22 1","pages":"81-104"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010841/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcomes and Patient Perspectives in Full Endoscopic Cervical Surgery: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Sung Tan Cho, Ayush Sharma, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Meng-Huang Wu, Lo Cho Yau, Hyun-Jin Park, Ho-Jin Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.14245/ns.2449086.534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurospine\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"81-104\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010841/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurospine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2449086.534\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurospine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2449086.534","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:全内窥镜颈椎手术(FECS)是一种不断发展的微创治疗颈椎疾病的方法。本系统综述综合了目前与FECS相关的临床结果和患者观点的证据,特别评估了其安全性、有效性和总体患者满意度。方法:系统检索PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane图书馆、Embase和Web of Science数据库,遵循PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)指南。纳入了2000年1月至2024年9月期间发表的关于FECS临床结果或患者观点的研究。使用ROBINS-I(非随机研究干预的偏倚风险)工具和Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。纳入标准包括随机对照试验、前瞻性队列研究、回顾性研究和观察性研究,这些研究集中在接受FECS颈椎手术的成人人群中。结果:最终综合纳入30项研究。通过标准化临床量表(如颈部残疾指数和视觉模拟量表)测量,FECS与颈椎和神经根疼痛的显著减轻以及有意义的功能改善有关。患者满意率一直很高,大多数研究报告满意度超过85%。并发症发生率低,主要涉及一过性神经功能缺损,通常无需进一步干预即可解决。由于混淆和选择,非随机研究通常呈现中等偏倚风险,而随机对照试验呈现低偏倚风险。结论:FECS是一种安全有效的颈椎疾病微创手术选择,具有明显的疼痛缓解、功能改善和患者满意度高。
Clinical Outcomes and Patient Perspectives in Full Endoscopic Cervical Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction.
Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery.
Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias.
Conclusion: FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.