四种不同固定系统颈前路椎间盘切除融合的有效性和安全性比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析

Jing Xiao, Hui Yu, Jianfeng Sun, Yuxuan Deng, Yang Zhao, Rui Gao, Xian Li
{"title":"四种不同固定系统颈前路椎间盘切除融合的有效性和安全性比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析","authors":"Jing Xiao, Hui Yu, Jianfeng Sun, Yuxuan Deng, Yang Zhao, Rui Gao, Xian Li","doi":"10.2174/18742203-v10-e230505-2022-50","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the classic procedure for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Cage with plate (CP), polyetheretherketone cage alone (PCA), ROI-C and Zero-P are the most widely used fixation systems in ACDF. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal system for ACDF.\n \n \n \n \n A comprehensive analysis to show which of the CP, PCA, ROI-C and Zero-P after ACDF has the best clinical efficacy and the most reliable safety.\n \n \n \n \n We searched the Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane library up to the date of February 13th, 2021. Studies included relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with a comparison of different fixation systems among CP, PCA, ROI-C and Zero-P were identified.\n \n \n \n We screened 43 trials eligible, including 3045 patients. No significant differences were found in the NDI score. PCA has shown a significantly less recovery of cervical lordosis than CP and Zero-P. For the non-fusion rate, PCA was significantly higher than CP. PCA had a significantly higher subsidence rate than CP and Zero-P, and ROI-C was also significantly higher than CP. For the incidence of complications, CP was significantly higher than the others. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) for NDI score improvement was: SSC, PCA, and CP. ROI-C, Zero-P, PCA, and CP; for cervical lordosis recovery: CP, Zero-P, ROI-C, and PCA; for non-fusion rate: PCA, Zero-P, ROI-C, and CP; for subsidence rate: PCA, ROI-C, Zero-P, and CP; for complications: CP, PCA, ROI-C, and Zero-P.\n \n \n \n Despite the third-ranking spectrums of fusion rate, Zero-P still could be recommended for its second-ranking spectrums of the NDI score improvement efficacy, cervical lordosis recovery, and reduction of subsidence rate, with the least ranking of complications.\n \n \n \n The number of PROSPERO is CRD42021230735 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).\n","PeriodicalId":91371,"journal":{"name":"Open medicine journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Four Different Fixation Systems: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jing Xiao, Hui Yu, Jianfeng Sun, Yuxuan Deng, Yang Zhao, Rui Gao, Xian Li\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/18742203-v10-e230505-2022-50\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the classic procedure for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Cage with plate (CP), polyetheretherketone cage alone (PCA), ROI-C and Zero-P are the most widely used fixation systems in ACDF. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal system for ACDF.\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n A comprehensive analysis to show which of the CP, PCA, ROI-C and Zero-P after ACDF has the best clinical efficacy and the most reliable safety.\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n We searched the Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane library up to the date of February 13th, 2021. Studies included relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with a comparison of different fixation systems among CP, PCA, ROI-C and Zero-P were identified.\\n \\n \\n \\n We screened 43 trials eligible, including 3045 patients. No significant differences were found in the NDI score. PCA has shown a significantly less recovery of cervical lordosis than CP and Zero-P. For the non-fusion rate, PCA was significantly higher than CP. PCA had a significantly higher subsidence rate than CP and Zero-P, and ROI-C was also significantly higher than CP. For the incidence of complications, CP was significantly higher than the others. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) for NDI score improvement was: SSC, PCA, and CP. ROI-C, Zero-P, PCA, and CP; for cervical lordosis recovery: CP, Zero-P, ROI-C, and PCA; for non-fusion rate: PCA, Zero-P, ROI-C, and CP; for subsidence rate: PCA, ROI-C, Zero-P, and CP; for complications: CP, PCA, ROI-C, and Zero-P.\\n \\n \\n \\n Despite the third-ranking spectrums of fusion rate, Zero-P still could be recommended for its second-ranking spectrums of the NDI score improvement efficacy, cervical lordosis recovery, and reduction of subsidence rate, with the least ranking of complications.\\n \\n \\n \\n The number of PROSPERO is CRD42021230735 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":91371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open medicine journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open medicine journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/18742203-v10-e230505-2022-50\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open medicine journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/18742203-v10-e230505-2022-50","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

颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)是治疗退行性脊髓型颈椎病(DCM)的经典方法。带板笼(CP)、单用聚醚醚酮笼(PCA)、ROI-C和Zero-P是ACDF中使用最广泛的固定系统。然而,没有足够的证据来确定ACDF的最佳系统。综合分析显示ACDF后的CP、PCA、ROI-C和Zero-P中哪一种具有最佳的临床疗效和最可靠的安全性。截至2021年2月13日,我们搜索了Embase、Pubmed和Cochrane图书馆。研究包括相关的随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究,对CP、PCA、ROI-C和Zero-P的不同固定系统进行了比较。我们筛选了43项符合条件的试验,包括3045名患者。NDI评分无显著差异。PCA显示,与CP和Zero-P相比,颈椎前凸的恢复明显较差。在非融合率方面,PCA显著高于CP。PCA的沉降率显著高于CP和Zero-P,ROI-C也显著高于CP;在并发症发生率方面,CP显著高于其他组。NDI评分改善的累积排名曲线下表面为:SSC、PCA和CP。ROI-C、Zero-P、PCA和CP;颈椎前凸恢复:CP、Zero-P、ROI-C和PCA;对于非融合率:PCA、Zero-P、ROI-C和CP;沉降率:PCA、ROI-C、Zero-P和CP;并发症:CP、PCA、ROI-C和Zero-P。尽管融合率排名第三,但Zero-P在NDI评分改善疗效、颈椎前凸恢复和沉降率降低方面排名第二,并发症排名最低。PROSPERO的编号为CRD42021230735(www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Four Different Fixation Systems: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the classic procedure for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Cage with plate (CP), polyetheretherketone cage alone (PCA), ROI-C and Zero-P are the most widely used fixation systems in ACDF. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal system for ACDF. A comprehensive analysis to show which of the CP, PCA, ROI-C and Zero-P after ACDF has the best clinical efficacy and the most reliable safety. We searched the Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane library up to the date of February 13th, 2021. Studies included relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with a comparison of different fixation systems among CP, PCA, ROI-C and Zero-P were identified. We screened 43 trials eligible, including 3045 patients. No significant differences were found in the NDI score. PCA has shown a significantly less recovery of cervical lordosis than CP and Zero-P. For the non-fusion rate, PCA was significantly higher than CP. PCA had a significantly higher subsidence rate than CP and Zero-P, and ROI-C was also significantly higher than CP. For the incidence of complications, CP was significantly higher than the others. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) for NDI score improvement was: SSC, PCA, and CP. ROI-C, Zero-P, PCA, and CP; for cervical lordosis recovery: CP, Zero-P, ROI-C, and PCA; for non-fusion rate: PCA, Zero-P, ROI-C, and CP; for subsidence rate: PCA, ROI-C, Zero-P, and CP; for complications: CP, PCA, ROI-C, and Zero-P. Despite the third-ranking spectrums of fusion rate, Zero-P still could be recommended for its second-ranking spectrums of the NDI score improvement efficacy, cervical lordosis recovery, and reduction of subsidence rate, with the least ranking of complications. The number of PROSPERO is CRD42021230735 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
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
×
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