双门静脉内窥镜腰椎椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效和并发症的比较评价:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-04-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S472975
Qianqin Hu, Keyi Xiao, Jin-Niang Nan, Shang-Wun Jhang, Chien-Min Chen, Guang-Xun Lin
{"title":"双门静脉内窥镜腰椎椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效和并发症的比较评价:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Qianqin Hu, Keyi Xiao, Jin-Niang Nan, Shang-Wun Jhang, Chien-Min Chen, Guang-Xun Lin","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S472975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To effectuate a comprehensive juxtaposition of the clinical implications, incidence of complications, and successful fusion rates observed in the context of biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The present research initiative involved an exhaustive exploration of pertinent scholarly literature in renowned databases, which lasted until April 2023. The evaluative framework encompassed a diverse array of parameters, including but not limited to operation time, hospitalization, quantification of estimated blood loss, the assessment of outcomes via the application of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to gauge pain intensity, and the utilization of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure functional impairment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current meta-analysis included ten studies with a total of 736 participants. In comparison of the BE-LIF and MI-TLIF techniques, no substantial differences were observed in the parameters studied, included VAS for leg pain (P > 0.05), as well as the assessment of complication rates (7.76% versus 7.97%; P = 0.71) and fusion rates (89.59% versus 88.60%; P = 0.90). However, the early postoperative VAS for back pain (P < 0.0001) and the early postoperative ODI score (P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the BE-LIF group than in the MI-TLIF group. Additionally, a significant difference in blood loss was observed (P < 0.0001), with less blood loss in the BE-LIF group compared to the MI-TLIF group. Furthermore, the complex surgical procedure of BE-LIF resulted in a longer duration of surgery (P = 0.02) but shorter hospitalization compared with MI-TLIF (P < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the context of the management of lumbar degenerative diseases, BE-LIF surgery exhibits clinical effectiveness and incidence of complications comparable to MI-TLIF. In contrast to MI-TLIF, BE-LIF offers distinctive merits, including reduced blood loss, abbreviated hospitalization durations, expedited relief from postoperative back pain, and an accelerated trajectory towards functional recuperation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"2215-2231"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042964/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy and Complications Between Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Qianqin Hu, Keyi Xiao, Jin-Niang Nan, Shang-Wun Jhang, Chien-Min Chen, Guang-Xun Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JPR.S472975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To effectuate a comprehensive juxtaposition of the clinical implications, incidence of complications, and successful fusion rates observed in the context of biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The present research initiative involved an exhaustive exploration of pertinent scholarly literature in renowned databases, which lasted until April 2023. The evaluative framework encompassed a diverse array of parameters, including but not limited to operation time, hospitalization, quantification of estimated blood loss, the assessment of outcomes via the application of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to gauge pain intensity, and the utilization of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure functional impairment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current meta-analysis included ten studies with a total of 736 participants. In comparison of the BE-LIF and MI-TLIF techniques, no substantial differences were observed in the parameters studied, included VAS for leg pain (P > 0.05), as well as the assessment of complication rates (7.76% versus 7.97%; P = 0.71) and fusion rates (89.59% versus 88.60%; P = 0.90). However, the early postoperative VAS for back pain (P < 0.0001) and the early postoperative ODI score (P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the BE-LIF group than in the MI-TLIF group. Additionally, a significant difference in blood loss was observed (P < 0.0001), with less blood loss in the BE-LIF group compared to the MI-TLIF group. Furthermore, the complex surgical procedure of BE-LIF resulted in a longer duration of surgery (P = 0.02) but shorter hospitalization compared with MI-TLIF (P < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the context of the management of lumbar degenerative diseases, BE-LIF surgery exhibits clinical effectiveness and incidence of complications comparable to MI-TLIF. In contrast to MI-TLIF, BE-LIF offers distinctive merits, including reduced blood loss, abbreviated hospitalization durations, expedited relief from postoperative back pain, and an accelerated trajectory towards functional recuperation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"2215-2231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042964/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S472975\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S472975","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对双门静脉内窥镜腰椎椎体间融合术(BE-LIF)和微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MI-TLIF)的临床意义、并发症发生率和成功融合率进行综合比较。方法:目前的研究计划涉及对知名数据库中相关学术文献的详尽探索,持续到2023年4月。评估框架包括多种参数,包括但不限于手术时间、住院、估计失血量的量化、通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估疼痛强度来评估结果,以及利用Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)来衡量功能损害。结果:当前的荟萃分析包括10项研究,共有736名参与者。BE-LIF技术与MI-TLIF技术比较,在研究参数方面无显著差异,包括腿部疼痛的VAS评分(P < 0.05),以及并发症发生率评估(7.76% vs 7.97%;P = 0.71)和融合率(89.59% vs 88.60%;P = 0.90)。然而,术后早期背部疼痛VAS评分(P < 0.0001)和术后早期ODI评分(P = 0.007), BE-LIF组明显低于MI-TLIF组。此外,观察到出血量有显著差异(P < 0.0001),与MI-TLIF组相比,BE-LIF组的出血量较少。此外,与MI-TLIF相比,BE-LIF手术过程复杂,手术时间更长(P = 0.02),住院时间更短(P < 0.0001)。结论:在腰椎退行性疾病的治疗中,BE-LIF手术具有与MI-TLIF相当的临床效果和并发症发生率。与MI-TLIF相比,BE-LIF具有独特的优点,包括减少失血,缩短住院时间,加速缓解术后背部疼痛,加速功能恢复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy and Complications Between Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To effectuate a comprehensive juxtaposition of the clinical implications, incidence of complications, and successful fusion rates observed in the context of biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

Methods: The present research initiative involved an exhaustive exploration of pertinent scholarly literature in renowned databases, which lasted until April 2023. The evaluative framework encompassed a diverse array of parameters, including but not limited to operation time, hospitalization, quantification of estimated blood loss, the assessment of outcomes via the application of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to gauge pain intensity, and the utilization of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure functional impairment.

Results: The current meta-analysis included ten studies with a total of 736 participants. In comparison of the BE-LIF and MI-TLIF techniques, no substantial differences were observed in the parameters studied, included VAS for leg pain (P > 0.05), as well as the assessment of complication rates (7.76% versus 7.97%; P = 0.71) and fusion rates (89.59% versus 88.60%; P = 0.90). However, the early postoperative VAS for back pain (P < 0.0001) and the early postoperative ODI score (P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the BE-LIF group than in the MI-TLIF group. Additionally, a significant difference in blood loss was observed (P < 0.0001), with less blood loss in the BE-LIF group compared to the MI-TLIF group. Furthermore, the complex surgical procedure of BE-LIF resulted in a longer duration of surgery (P = 0.02) but shorter hospitalization compared with MI-TLIF (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Within the context of the management of lumbar degenerative diseases, BE-LIF surgery exhibits clinical effectiveness and incidence of complications comparable to MI-TLIF. In contrast to MI-TLIF, BE-LIF offers distinctive merits, including reduced blood loss, abbreviated hospitalization durations, expedited relief from postoperative back pain, and an accelerated trajectory towards functional recuperation.

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
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
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