双门静脉内窥镜与管状入路治疗腰椎退行性疾病的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Mark Kurapatti, Alexander Yu, Hamza Ahmed, Charu Jain, Ryan Hoang, Gray W Ricca, Junho Song, Daniel Berman, Joshua Lee, Samuel K Cho
{"title":"双门静脉内窥镜与管状入路治疗腰椎退行性疾病的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mark Kurapatti, Alexander Yu, Hamza Ahmed, Charu Jain, Ryan Hoang, Gray W Ricca, Junho Song, Daniel Berman, Joshua Lee, Samuel K Cho","doi":"10.1177/21925682251356220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study DesignSystematic Review and Meta-analysis.ObjectivesLumbar degenerative disease (LDD) is prevalent among aging adults. While tubular retraction is a widely used minimally invasive approach, biportal endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a potential alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of tubular retraction and biportal endoscopy for decompression procedures (discectomy, laminectomy, laminotomy) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in LDD patients.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified relevant studies published before October 7, 2024. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model to assess Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and length of stay at preoperative, ≤2-weeks postoperative, and ≥1-year postoperative time points.ResultsA total of 772 patients were included (400 tubular, 372 biportal). Biportal endoscopic surgery was associated with a lower complication rate (10.73% vs 15.94%; <i>P</i> < .001) and lower ≤2-week postoperative VAS back pain (2.70 ± 0.27 vs 3.55 ± 0.49; <i>P</i> < .001) relative to tubular spine surgery. Biportal decompression had a lower complication rate (15.13% vs 22.34%; <i>P</i> = .006) but similar patient-reported outcomes. Biportal TLIF had longer operative times (189.93 ± 25.90 vs 145.1 ± 14.90 min; <i>P</i> = .026) but lower complication rates (6.33% vs 9.55%; <i>P</i> = .026) and ≥1-year VAS leg pain (1.88 ± 0.29 vs 2.02 ± 0.26; <i>P</i> < .001).ConclusionsBiportal endoscopy for LDD had lower complication rates and similar patient-reported outcomes relative to tubular retraction, though longer operative times in TLIF subanalysis. Future studies are necessary to validate findings and guide patient-specific decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682251356220"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202385/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Biportal Endoscopic Versus Tubular Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mark Kurapatti, Alexander Yu, Hamza Ahmed, Charu Jain, Ryan Hoang, Gray W Ricca, Junho Song, Daniel Berman, Joshua Lee, Samuel K Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682251356220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Study DesignSystematic Review and Meta-analysis.ObjectivesLumbar degenerative disease (LDD) is prevalent among aging adults. While tubular retraction is a widely used minimally invasive approach, biportal endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a potential alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of tubular retraction and biportal endoscopy for decompression procedures (discectomy, laminectomy, laminotomy) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in LDD patients.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified relevant studies published before October 7, 2024. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model to assess Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and length of stay at preoperative, ≤2-weeks postoperative, and ≥1-year postoperative time points.ResultsA total of 772 patients were included (400 tubular, 372 biportal). Biportal endoscopic surgery was associated with a lower complication rate (10.73% vs 15.94%; <i>P</i> < .001) and lower ≤2-week postoperative VAS back pain (2.70 ± 0.27 vs 3.55 ± 0.49; <i>P</i> < .001) relative to tubular spine surgery. Biportal decompression had a lower complication rate (15.13% vs 22.34%; <i>P</i> = .006) but similar patient-reported outcomes. Biportal TLIF had longer operative times (189.93 ± 25.90 vs 145.1 ± 14.90 min; <i>P</i> = .026) but lower complication rates (6.33% vs 9.55%; <i>P</i> = .026) and ≥1-year VAS leg pain (1.88 ± 0.29 vs 2.02 ± 0.26; <i>P</i> < .001).ConclusionsBiportal endoscopy for LDD had lower complication rates and similar patient-reported outcomes relative to tubular retraction, though longer operative times in TLIF subanalysis. Future studies are necessary to validate findings and guide patient-specific decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"21925682251356220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202385/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251356220\",\"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/10.1177/21925682251356220","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:系统评价与荟萃分析。目的腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)在老年人中普遍存在。虽然管状后缩是广泛使用的微创入路,但双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术已成为一种潜在的替代方法。本系统综述和荟萃分析比较了小管内收和双门静脉内窥镜治疗LDD患者减压手术(椎间盘切除术、椎板切除术、椎板切开术)和经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)的临床结果。方法根据PRISMA指南对比较研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。对PubMed、Embase和Scopus进行全面搜索,确定了2024年10月7日之前发表的相关研究。采用随机效应模型分析数据,评估Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)、背部和腿部疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、并发症发生率、手术时间、术前、术后≤2周和术后≥1年时间点的住院时间。结果共纳入772例患者,其中管状腔400例,双门静脉372例。双门静脉内窥镜手术并发症发生率较低(10.73% vs 15.94%;P < 0.001)和术后≤2周VAS背部疼痛(2.70±0.27 vs 3.55±0.49;P < 0.001)。双门静脉减压术并发症发生率较低(15.13% vs 22.34%;P = .006),但患者报告的结果相似。双门静脉TLIF手术时间较长(189.93±25.90 min vs 145.1±14.90 min);P = 0.026),但并发症发生率较低(6.33% vs 9.55%;P = 0.026)和≥1年VAS腿部疼痛(1.88±0.29 vs 2.02±0.26;P < 0.001)。结论在TLIF亚分析中,双门静脉内窥镜治疗LDD的并发症发生率较低,患者报告的结果与小管内收术相似,但手术时间较长。未来的研究有必要验证研究结果并指导患者的具体决策。
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 the Biportal Endoscopic Versus Tubular Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Study DesignSystematic Review and Meta-analysis.ObjectivesLumbar degenerative disease (LDD) is prevalent among aging adults. While tubular retraction is a widely used minimally invasive approach, biportal endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a potential alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of tubular retraction and biportal endoscopy for decompression procedures (discectomy, laminectomy, laminotomy) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in LDD patients.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified relevant studies published before October 7, 2024. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model to assess Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and length of stay at preoperative, ≤2-weeks postoperative, and ≥1-year postoperative time points.ResultsA total of 772 patients were included (400 tubular, 372 biportal). Biportal endoscopic surgery was associated with a lower complication rate (10.73% vs 15.94%; P < .001) and lower ≤2-week postoperative VAS back pain (2.70 ± 0.27 vs 3.55 ± 0.49; P < .001) relative to tubular spine surgery. Biportal decompression had a lower complication rate (15.13% vs 22.34%; P = .006) but similar patient-reported outcomes. Biportal TLIF had longer operative times (189.93 ± 25.90 vs 145.1 ± 14.90 min; P = .026) but lower complication rates (6.33% vs 9.55%; P = .026) and ≥1-year VAS leg pain (1.88 ± 0.29 vs 2.02 ± 0.26; P < .001).ConclusionsBiportal endoscopy for LDD had lower complication rates and similar patient-reported outcomes relative to tubular retraction, though longer operative times in TLIF subanalysis. Future studies are necessary to validate findings and guide patient-specific decision-making.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信