微创与传统经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗单节段低程度腰椎滑脱:系统回顾和荟萃分析

Mohamed Mahmoud, Mohamed Shamia, Mostafa Kofi, A. Abou-Madawi
{"title":"微创与传统经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗单节段低程度腰椎滑脱:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Mohamed Mahmoud, Mohamed Shamia, Mostafa Kofi, A. Abou-Madawi","doi":"10.21608/esj.2021.97745.1191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Data: Degenerative lumbar spine, including spondylolisthesis, is a common clinical condition that affects humans in the most productive period of their life. There are many surgical options for the management of such conditions after the failure of conservative therapy. Recently, there has been a great debate regarding the use of minimally invasive (MI) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) in the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, so there was a need to reach a consensus over this issue. Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of MI-TLIF versus O-TLIF in the treatment of single-level low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Study Design: A systematic review for recent studies in the context and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: We searched online databases of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ (2016–2020), and the search yielded 1352 articles. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included retrospective, prospective, and randomized control trials, which came down to 11 research articles. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, back pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale), functional score (Oswestry Disability Index), complication rate, and reoperation rate for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis. Results: There is an overall advantage for the MI-TLIF over the O-TLIF in different parameters. There was a statistically significant difference in blood loss of −0.954 ml (p = 0.000) and hospital stay of −1.19 days (P = 0.000), favoring M-TLIF. There was a statistically insignificant difference in the total operative time (P = 0.071), the postoperative VAS of −0.22 (P = 0.384), and the postoperative ODI of −2 (P = 0.331). Moreover, there was a reduced combined odds ratio for complications and a reduced odds ratio for re-operation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EgySpineJ 39:2-17, 2021","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Single-Level Low-Grade Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Mahmoud, Mohamed Shamia, Mostafa Kofi, A. Abou-Madawi\",\"doi\":\"10.21608/esj.2021.97745.1191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Data: Degenerative lumbar spine, including spondylolisthesis, is a common clinical condition that affects humans in the most productive period of their life. There are many surgical options for the management of such conditions after the failure of conservative therapy. Recently, there has been a great debate regarding the use of minimally invasive (MI) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) in the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, so there was a need to reach a consensus over this issue. Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of MI-TLIF versus O-TLIF in the treatment of single-level low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Study Design: A systematic review for recent studies in the context and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: We searched online databases of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ (2016–2020), and the search yielded 1352 articles. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included retrospective, prospective, and randomized control trials, which came down to 11 research articles. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, back pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale), functional score (Oswestry Disability Index), complication rate, and reoperation rate for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis. Results: There is an overall advantage for the MI-TLIF over the O-TLIF in different parameters. There was a statistically significant difference in blood loss of −0.954 ml (p = 0.000) and hospital stay of −1.19 days (P = 0.000), favoring M-TLIF. There was a statistically insignificant difference in the total operative time (P = 0.071), the postoperative VAS of −0.22 (P = 0.384), and the postoperative ODI of −2 (P = 0.331). Moreover, there was a reduced combined odds ratio for complications and a reduced odds ratio for re-operation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EgySpineJ 39:2-17, 2021\",\"PeriodicalId\":11610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Egyptian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21608/esj.2021.97745.1191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/esj.2021.97745.1191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景资料:退行性腰椎,包括腰椎滑脱,是一种常见的临床疾病,影响人类生命中最多产的时期。在保守治疗失败后,有许多手术选择来处理这种情况。最近,在治疗单节段低程度腰椎滑脱时,采用微创(MI)还是开放式经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(O-TLIF)存在很大的争议,因此有必要在这个问题上达成共识。目的:比较MI-TLIF与O-TLIF治疗单节段低度退行性腰椎滑脱的临床疗效和安全性。研究设计:对近期研究的背景和荟萃分析进行系统回顾。患者和方法:检索PubMed、谷歌Scholar、Cochrane Library和DOAJ(2016-2020)等在线数据库,共检索到1352篇文章。根据我们的纳入和排除标准,我们纳入了回顾性、前瞻性和随机对照试验,共纳入了11篇研究论文。记录两种技术的手术时间、出血量、住院时间、背部疼痛评分(视觉模拟量表)、功能评分(Oswestry残疾指数)、并发症发生率和再手术率,并以平均数表示。然后我们进行了荟萃分析。结果:MI-TLIF在不同参数上总体优于O-TLIF。失血量为- 0.954 ml (p = 0.000),住院时间为- 1.19 d (p = 0.000),两组间差异有统计学意义,M-TLIF优于M-TLIF。两组总手术时间(P = 0.071)、术后VAS为- 0.22 (P = 0.384)、术后ODI为- 2 (P = 0.331),差异均无统计学意义。此外,并发症的综合优势比和再手术的综合优势比也降低了。[j] .中国生物医学工程学报,2016,31 (2):444 - 444
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Single-Level Low-Grade Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background Data: Degenerative lumbar spine, including spondylolisthesis, is a common clinical condition that affects humans in the most productive period of their life. There are many surgical options for the management of such conditions after the failure of conservative therapy. Recently, there has been a great debate regarding the use of minimally invasive (MI) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) in the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, so there was a need to reach a consensus over this issue. Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of MI-TLIF versus O-TLIF in the treatment of single-level low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Study Design: A systematic review for recent studies in the context and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: We searched online databases of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ (2016–2020), and the search yielded 1352 articles. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included retrospective, prospective, and randomized control trials, which came down to 11 research articles. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, back pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale), functional score (Oswestry Disability Index), complication rate, and reoperation rate for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis. Results: There is an overall advantage for the MI-TLIF over the O-TLIF in different parameters. There was a statistically significant difference in blood loss of −0.954 ml (p = 0.000) and hospital stay of −1.19 days (P = 0.000), favoring M-TLIF. There was a statistically insignificant difference in the total operative time (P = 0.071), the postoperative VAS of −0.22 (P = 0.384), and the postoperative ODI of −2 (P = 0.331). Moreover, there was a reduced combined odds ratio for complications and a reduced odds ratio for re-operation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EgySpineJ 39:2-17, 2021
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 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