混合手术与双水平ACDF治疗连续颈椎间盘退行性病变的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yihan Yang, Weishi Liang, Duan Sun, Bo Han, Zhangfu Li, Yeqiu Xu, Peng Yin, Xianjun Qu, Yong Hai
{"title":"混合手术与双水平ACDF治疗连续颈椎间盘退行性病变的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yihan Yang, Weishi Liang, Duan Sun, Bo Han, Zhangfu Li, Yeqiu Xu, Peng Yin, Xianjun Qu, Yong Hai","doi":"10.1177/21925682251343524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare hybrid surgery (HS) and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of consecutive two-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).MethodsComprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Extracted data from the selected studies included operative time, intra-operative blood loss, C2-C7 range of motion (C2-C7 ROM), superior adjacent segment range of motion (SAS ROM), inferior adjacent segment range of motion (IAS ROM), complication incidence, neck disability index (NDI) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 626 patients from 11 studies who underwent either HS or two-level ACDF for CDDD were analyzed. Compared to ACDF in the non-ROI-C cage group, HS better preserved post-operative and final follow-up C2-C7 ROM (post-operation: MD 10.08, 95% CI 6.58 to 13.58, <i>P <</i> 0.01; final follow-up: MD 7.62, 95% CI 5.83 to 9.42, <i>P <</i> 0.01). HS significantly reduced post-operative and final follow-up SAS ROM and IAS ROM at the final follow-up. Additionally, HS resulted in less intraoperative blood loss than ACDF when blood loss reached 90 mL or more. Analysis of functional scores (NDI, JOA, and VAS), operative time, and complication rates showed no significant differences between HS and ACDF.ConclusionHS achieved better radiographic outcomes compared to two-level ACDF, with comparable clinical outcomes, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and a similar complication rate. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682251343524"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12092425/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Hybrid Surgery and Two-Level ACDF in Treating Consecutive Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yihan Yang, Weishi Liang, Duan Sun, Bo Han, Zhangfu Li, Yeqiu Xu, Peng Yin, Xianjun Qu, Yong Hai\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682251343524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare hybrid surgery (HS) and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of consecutive two-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).MethodsComprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Extracted data from the selected studies included operative time, intra-operative blood loss, C2-C7 range of motion (C2-C7 ROM), superior adjacent segment range of motion (SAS ROM), inferior adjacent segment range of motion (IAS ROM), complication incidence, neck disability index (NDI) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 626 patients from 11 studies who underwent either HS or two-level ACDF for CDDD were analyzed. Compared to ACDF in the non-ROI-C cage group, HS better preserved post-operative and final follow-up C2-C7 ROM (post-operation: MD 10.08, 95% CI 6.58 to 13.58, <i>P <</i> 0.01; final follow-up: MD 7.62, 95% CI 5.83 to 9.42, <i>P <</i> 0.01). HS significantly reduced post-operative and final follow-up SAS ROM and IAS ROM at the final follow-up. Additionally, HS resulted in less intraoperative blood loss than ACDF when blood loss reached 90 mL or more. Analysis of functional scores (NDI, JOA, and VAS), operative time, and complication rates showed no significant differences between HS and ACDF.ConclusionHS achieved better radiographic outcomes compared to two-level ACDF, with comparable clinical outcomes, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and a similar complication rate. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"21925682251343524\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12092425/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251343524\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251343524","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。目的:本荟萃分析旨在比较混合手术(HS)和两节段前路颈椎椎间盘切除术融合(ACDF)治疗连续两节段颈椎退行性椎间盘病(CDDD)的疗效。方法在PubMed、Embase、Web of Science中进行综合检索。所选研究提取的数据包括手术时间、术中出血量、C2-C7活动范围(C2-C7 ROM)、上邻段活动范围(SAS ROM)、下邻段活动范围(IAS ROM)、并发症发生率、颈部残疾指数(NDI)评分、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分和视觉模拟评分(VAS)评分。采用RevMan 5.3进行meta分析。结果共分析了11项研究中626例接受HS或二级ACDF治疗CDDD的患者。与非roi - c笼组ACDF相比,HS更好地保存了术后和最终随访的C2-C7 ROM(术后:MD 10.08, 95% CI 6.58 ~ 13.58, P 0.01;最终随访:MD 7.62, 95% CI 5.83 ~ 9.42, p0.01)。HS显著降低了术后和终期随访SAS ROM和IAS ROM。此外,当出血量达到90ml及以上时,HS术中出血量少于ACDF。功能评分(NDI、JOA、VAS)、手术时间、并发症发生率分析显示HS与ACDF无显著差异。结论与二级ACDF相比,hs具有更好的影像学结果,临床结果相似,术中出血量减少,并发症发生率相似。然而,需要进一步的高质量随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Hybrid Surgery and Two-Level ACDF in Treating Consecutive Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare hybrid surgery (HS) and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of consecutive two-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).MethodsComprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Extracted data from the selected studies included operative time, intra-operative blood loss, C2-C7 range of motion (C2-C7 ROM), superior adjacent segment range of motion (SAS ROM), inferior adjacent segment range of motion (IAS ROM), complication incidence, neck disability index (NDI) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 626 patients from 11 studies who underwent either HS or two-level ACDF for CDDD were analyzed. Compared to ACDF in the non-ROI-C cage group, HS better preserved post-operative and final follow-up C2-C7 ROM (post-operation: MD 10.08, 95% CI 6.58 to 13.58, P < 0.01; final follow-up: MD 7.62, 95% CI 5.83 to 9.42, P < 0.01). HS significantly reduced post-operative and final follow-up SAS ROM and IAS ROM at the final follow-up. Additionally, HS resulted in less intraoperative blood loss than ACDF when blood loss reached 90 mL or more. Analysis of functional scores (NDI, JOA, and VAS), operative time, and complication rates showed no significant differences between HS and ACDF.ConclusionHS achieved better radiographic outcomes compared to two-level ACDF, with comparable clinical outcomes, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and a similar complication rate. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.

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
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
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