-
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... Jan 2023Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Historically, posterior approaches to the lumbar spine have allowed surgeons to manage degenerative conditions affecting the lumbar spine. However, spinal muscles injury, post-surgical vertebral instability, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) represent severe complications that may occur after these surgeries. Lumbar interbody fusion using anterior (ALIF), oblique (OLIF), or lateral (LLIF) approaches may represent valuable surgical alternatives, in case fusion is indicated on single or multiple levels.
METHODS
The present study is a systematic review, conducted according to the PRISMA statement, of comparative studies on OLIF, and LLIF for degenerative spine disorders, and a meta-analysis of their clinical-radiological outcomes and complications.
RESULTS
After screening 1472 papers on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, only 3 papers were included in the present study. 318 patients were included for data meta-analysis, 128 in OLIF group, and 190 in LLIF group. There were no significative differences in terms of surgical (intraoperative blood loss and surgical duration) and clinical (VAS-back, VAS-leg, and ODI scores) outcomes, or fusion rates at last follow-up (> 2 years). Significantly higher rates of abdominal complications, system failure, and vascular injuries were recorded in the OLIF group. Conversely, postoperative neurological symptoms and psoas weakness were significatively more common in LLIF group.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis suggests that OLIF and LLIF are both effective for lumbar degenerative disorders, although each of them presents specific complications and this should represent a relevant element in the surgical planning.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fusion; Spinal Diseases; Lumbar Vertebrae; Blood Loss, Surgical; Surgeons; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34825987
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-021-03172-0 -
Global Spine Journal Dec 2015Study Design Systematic review. Objectives (1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion... (Review)
Review
Study Design Systematic review. Objectives (1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ≥3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95% confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.
PubMed: 26682099
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1567835 -
Chest Oct 2014During disasters, supply chain vulnerabilities, such as power, transportation, and communication, may affect the delivery of medications and medical supplies and hamper... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
During disasters, supply chain vulnerabilities, such as power, transportation, and communication, may affect the delivery of medications and medical supplies and hamper the ability to deliver critical care services. Disasters also have the potential to disrupt information technology (IT) in health-care systems, resulting in interruptions in patient care, particularly critical care, and other health-care business functions. The suggestions in this article are important for all of those involved in a large-scale pandemic or disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials.
METHODS
The Business and Continuity of Operations Panel followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology in developing key questions regarding medication and supply shortages and the impact disasters may have on healthcare IT. Task force members met in person to develop the 13 key questions believed to be most relevant for Business and Continuity of Operations. A systematic literature review was then performed for relevant articles and documents, reports, and gray literature reported since 2007. No studies of sufficient quality were identified upon which to make evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process.
RESULTS
Eighteen suggestions addressing mitigation strategies for supply chain vulnerabilities including medications and IT were generated. Suggestions offered to hospitals and health system leadership regarding medication and supply shortages include: (1) purchase key medications and supplies from more than one supplier, (2) substituted medications or supplies should ideally be similar to those already used by an institution's providers, (3) inventories should be tracked electronically to monitor medication/supply levels, (4) consider higher inventories of medications and supplies known or projected to be in short supply, (5) institute alternate use protocols when a (potential) shortage is identified, and 6) support government and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to address supply chain vulnerability. Health-care IT can be damaged in a disaster, and hospitals and health system leadership should have plans for urgently reestablishing local area networks. Planning should include using portable technology, plans for providing power, maintenance of a patient database that can accompany each patient, and protection of patient privacy. Additionally, long-term planning should include prioritizing servers and memory disk drives and possibly increasing inventory of critical IT supplies in preparedness planning.
CONCLUSIONS
The provision of care to the critically ill or injured during a pandemic or disaster is dependent on key processes, such as the supply chain, and infrastructure, such as IT systems. Hospitals and health systems will help minimize the impact of medication and supply shortages with a focused strategy using the steps suggested. IT preparedness for maintaining local area networks, functioning clinical information systems, and adequate server and memory storage capacity will greatly enhance preparedness for hospital and health system clinical and business operations.
Topics: Consensus; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Disasters; Health Resources; Humans; Pandemics; United States; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25144857
DOI: 10.1378/chest.14-0739 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Aug 2016To identify prognostic factors for curve progression in de novo degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DNDLS) by performing a systematic review of the literature. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To identify prognostic factors for curve progression in de novo degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DNDLS) by performing a systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
Studies were selected for inclusion following a systematic search in the bibliographic databases PubMed and EMBASE prior to September 2015 and hand searches of the reference lists of retrieved articles. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality. Data were extracted and presented according to a best evidence synthesis.
RESULTS
The literature search generated a total of 2696 references. After removing duplicates and articles that did not meet inclusion criteria, 12 studies were included. Due to the lack of statistical analyses, pooling of data was not possible. Strong evidence indicates that increasing intervertebral disk degeneration, lateral vertebral translation ≥6 mm, and an intercrest line through L5 (rather than L4) are associated with DNDLS curve progression. Moderate evidence suggests that apical vertebral rotation Grade II or III is associated with curve progression. For the majority of other prognostic factors, we found limited, conflicting, or inconclusive evidence. Osteoporosis, a coronal Cobb angle <30°, lumbar lordosis, lateral osteophytes difference of ≥5 mm, and degenerative spondylolisthesis have not been shown to be risk factors. Clinical risk factors for progression were not identified.
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows strong evidence that increased intervertebral disk degeneration, an intercrest line through L5, and apical lateral vertebral translation ≥6 mm are associated with DNDLS curve progression. Moderate evidence was found for apical vertebral rotation (Grade II/III) as a risk factor for curve progression. These results, however, may not be directly applicable to the individual patient.
Topics: Disease Progression; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Lordosis; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteophyte; Osteoporosis; Prognosis; Risk Factors; Rotation; Scoliosis; Spondylolisthesis
PubMed: 27220970
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4619-9 -
Human Antibodies 2021Metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer (MRCRC) has a poor prognosis. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence of different subtypes of KRAS... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer (MRCRC) has a poor prognosis. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence of different subtypes of KRAS mutation and BRAF mutation in metastatic CRC patients, and evaluate the relationship between the tumor sidedness and prevalence of KRAS and BRAF mutation.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2010 to July 2020. The data were extracted independently according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The statistical analysis was done using STATA and Meta-Disk 1.4 applications.
RESULTS
Overall, 6699 colorectal cancer patients were included. KRAS and BRAF mutation was reported in 28% and 6% of patients, respectively. The overall prevalence of right primary and left primary metastatic CRC patients with mutated KRAS was 40% and 60%. However, the prevalence BRAF mutated right primary and left primary metastatic CRC patients was 37% and 63%. The overall HR was 2.38 for patients with metastatic CRC who had a mutated type of KRAS. Our study showed a mean overall survival of 35.4 month for KRAS mutant and a 10.12 month survival for BRAF mutant patients with metastatic colorectal cancer patients.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of KRAS and BRAF mutations varied significantly according to the location of the tumor. BRAF mutations are more commonly found in metastatic colorectal cancers on the right side. Liver was the most common site of metastases in patients with mutant KRAS and the mortality of patients with mutant KRAS was 2.3 times higher than the patients with wild types. These results help to better describe the population of mCRC patients and can have implications for improving and organizing anti-EGFR therapies. Further research is needed to assess differences in survival through mutation status and primary tumor location.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Mutation; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
PubMed: 34334388
DOI: 10.3233/HAB-210451 -
Critical Care Medicine Apr 2017To evaluate the acquisition rate, identify risk factors, and estimate the risk for subsequent infection, associated with the colonization of the digestive tract with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
ICU Acquisition Rate, Risk Factors, and Clinical Significance of Digestive Tract Colonization With Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the acquisition rate, identify risk factors, and estimate the risk for subsequent infection, associated with the colonization of the digestive tract with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae during ICU-hospitalization.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, and reference lists of all eligible articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies provided data on ICU-acquired colonization with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in previously noncolonized and noninfected patients and used the double disk synergy test for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae phenotypic confirmation. Studies reporting extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae outbreaks or data on pediatric population were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed data extraction.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Thirteen studies (with 15,045 ICUs-patients) were evaluated using a random-effect model and a meta-regression analysis. The acquisition rate of digestive tract colonization during ICU stay was 7% (95% CI, 5-10) and it varies from 3% (95% CI, 2-4) and 4% (95% CI, 2-6) in the Americas and Europe to 21% (95% CI, 9-35) in the Western Pacific region. Previous hospitalization (risk ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.07-2.31]) or antibiotic use (risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.15-2.37]) and exposure to beta-lactams/beta-lactamase inhibitors (risk ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.24-2.56]) and carbapenems (risk ratio, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.49-3.06]) during the ICU stay were independent risk factors for ICU-acquired colonization. Importantly, colonized patients were more likely to develop an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae infection (risk ratio, 49.62 [95% CI, 20.42-120.58]). The sensitivity and specificity of prior colonization to predict subsequent extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae infection were 95.1% (95% CI, 54.7-99.7) and 89.2% (95% CI, 77.2-95.3), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The ICU acquisition rate of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae ranged from 5% to 10%. Previous use of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase or carbapenems and recent hospitalization were independent risk factors for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae colonization, and colonization was associated with significantly higher frequency of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae subsequent infection and increased mortality.
Topics: Carbapenems; Carrier State; Cross Infection; Enterobacteriaceae; Enterobacteriaceae Infections; Gastrointestinal Tract; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Risk Factors; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 28157141
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002253 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Oct 2017In this systematic review, we aim to illustrate the current and safe concepts in the assessment, diagnosis and management of herniated lumbar disc (HLD) during pregnancy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
In this systematic review, we aim to illustrate the current and safe concepts in the assessment, diagnosis and management of herniated lumbar disc (HLD) during pregnancy.
METHODS
A systematic review and reporting on the diagnosis, treatment and clinical results of HLD during pregnancy is performed.
RESULTS
The MRI represents the first level and safest diagnostic tool for pregnant women affected by spinal problems allowing for a noninvasive and detailed radiological examination of the spine. The initial management of pregnant women affected by HLD is conservative, and primarily aimed to pain therapy. Whenever radicular pain and progressive neurological deficits unresponsive to medical management occur, surgery should be considered. Few case reports regarding the operative management of HLD in pregnant women have been published up to date. Laminectomy and/or microdiscectomy represent the classical and most commonly used techniques that can be safely performed without affecting pregnancy, delivery, or baby's health. Endoscopic discectomy may be an alternative. The most adequate timing and surgical position are chosen based on to the fetal gestational age and site of the pathology.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgical treatments during pregnancy impose multiple medical and ethical problems. Timely diagnosis by MRI, careful clinical evaluation, and surgical treatment represent safe and effective procedures. Ongoing evolution of surgical, anesthesiological and obstetrical procedures results in favorable outcomes. However, interdisciplinary management and a wide knowledge of pregnancy-related pathologies are crucial for the best outcome for both mother and child.
Topics: Endoscopy; Female; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 28429143
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5040-8 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Jan 2023There was limited evidence on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of prediction models using machine learning methods in preterm birth. This systematic... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
There was limited evidence on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of prediction models using machine learning methods in preterm birth. This systematic review aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of a machine learning-based prediction model in preterm birth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review, searching the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disk, VIP Database, and WanFang Data from inception to September 27, 2021. Studies that developed (validated) a prediction model using machine learning methods in preterm birth were included. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate the reporting quality and the risk of bias of included studies, respectively. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and visual plots. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (no. CRD 42022301623).
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, with 24 development-only studies and 5 development-with-validation studies. Overall, TRIPOD adherence per study ranged from 17% to 79%, with a median adherence of 49%. The reporting of title, abstract, blinding of predictors, sample size justification, explanation of model, and model performance were mostly poor, with TRIPOD adherence ranging from 4% to 17%. For all included studies, 79% had a high overall risk of bias, and 21% had an unclear overall risk of bias. The analysis domain was most commonly rated as high risk of bias in included studies, mainly as a result of small effective sample size, selection of predictors based on univariable analysis, and lack of calibration evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
Reporting and methodological quality of machine learning-based prediction models in preterm birth were poor. It is urgent to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of such studies to boost the application of machine learning-based prediction models in preterm birth in clinical practice.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Premature Birth; Prognosis; Research Design; Machine Learning; China; Bias
PubMed: 36397723
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14475 -
Clinical Spine Surgery Dec 2021This is a meta-analysis and systematic review of the available literature. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
This is a meta-analysis and systematic review of the available literature.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
In the treatment of adult spinal deformity, LLIF allows interbody fusion while avoiding complications associated with an anterior or transforaminal approach, although the clinical outcomes of LLIF compared with other approaches have not been well established.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for 385 unique studies. On the basis of our exclusion criteria, 8 studies remained for our systematic review. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and random effect models. This study identified self-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, length of stay, blood loss, complication rate, and radiologic parameters (disk height, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis).
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis showed that LLIF contributed to decreased blood loss [mean difference (MD)=-67.62 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -104 to -30.90, P<0.001], superior restoration of segmental lordosis (MD=1.91 degrees, 95% CI: 0.71-3.10, P=0.002), lumbar lordosis (MD=1.95 degrees, 95% CI: 0.15-3.74, P=0.03), and disk height (MD=2.18 mm, 95% CI: 1.18-3.17, P<0.001) when compared with TLIF. However, current data suggests no significant difference in clinical outcomes between LLIF and TLIF based on overall complication rates (P=0.22), length of hospital stay (P=0.65), postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (P=0.13), postoperative VAS Back Pain (P=0.47) and VAS Leg Pain (P=0.16).
CONCLUSIONS
LLIF is an increasingly popular option for single-level anterior column reconstruction. When compared with single-level TLIF, single-level LLIF is associated with greater changes in lumbar lordosis and disk height. The single-level LLIF is a viable alternative to TLIF, demonstrating comparable clinical outcomes and better restoration of spinopelvic parameters.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Back Pain; Humans; Lordosis; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 33298799
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001107 -
Global Spine Journal Jun 2015Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions (1) Has the proportion and number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as an indicator of quality of evidence... (Review)
Review
Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions (1) Has the proportion and number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as an indicator of quality of evidence regarding lumbar fusion increased over the past 10 years? (2) Is there a difference in the proportion of RCTs among the four primary fusion diagnoses (degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, deformity, and adjacent segment disease) over the past 10 years? (3) Is there a difference in the type and quality of clinical outcomes measures reported among RCTs over time? (4) Is there a difference in the type and quality of adverse events measures reported among RCTs over time? (5) Are there changes in fusion surgical approach and techniques over time by diagnosis over the past 10 years? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2013, to identify lumbar fusion RCTs. Fusion studies designed specifically to evaluate recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 or other bone substitutes, revision surgery studies, nonrandomized comparison studies, case reports, case series, and cost-effectiveness studies were excluded. Results Forty-two RCTs between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013, met the inclusion criteria and form the basis for this report. There were 35 RCTs identified evaluating patients diagnosed with degenerative disk disease, 4 RCTs evaluating patients diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 3 RCTs evaluating patients with a combination of degenerative disk disease and degenerative spondylolisthesis. No RCTs were identified evaluating patients with deformity or adjacent segment disease. Conclusions This structured review demonstrates that there has been an increase in the available clinical database of RCTs using patient-reported outcomes evaluating the benefit of lumbar spinal fusion for the diagnoses of degenerative disk disease and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Gaps remain in the standardization of reportage of adverse events in such trials, as well as uniformity of surgical approaches used. Finally, continued efforts to develop higher-quality data for other surgical indications for lumbar fusion, most notably in the presence of adult spinal deformity and revision of prior surgical fusions, appear warranted.
PubMed: 26131387
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1552984