-
Spine Apr 2021Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To give a systematic overview of effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open microdiscectomy (OM) in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
The current standard procedure for the treatment of sciatica caused by LDH, is OM. PTED is an alternative surgical technique which is thought to be less invasive. It is unclear if PTED has comparable outcomes compared with OM.
METHODS
Multiple online databases were systematically searched up to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials and prospective studies comparing PTED with OM for LDH. Primary outcomes were leg pain and functional status. Pooled effect estimates were calculated for the primary outcomes only and presented as standard mean differences (SMD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) at short (1-day postoperative), intermediate (3-6 months), and long-term (12 months).
RESULTS
We identified 2276 citations, of which eventually 14 studies were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in effects on leg pain at short term. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain at intermediate (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.10-0.21) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.30-0.53). Only one study measured functional status at short-term and reported no differences. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in functional status at intermediate (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.24-0.07) and long-term (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.45-0.24).
CONCLUSION
There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain or functional status at intermediate and long-term follow-up between PTED and OM in the treatment of LDH. High quality, robust studies reporting on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness on the long term are lacking.Level of Evidence: 2.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Microsurgery; Pain Measurement; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33290374
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003843 -
Medicine Feb 2019Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare patient outcomes of lumbar discectomy with bone-anchored annular closure (LD + AC), lumbar discectomy (LD), and continuing conservative care (CC) for treatment of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Several treatment options are available to patients with refractory symptoms of lumbar disc herniation, but their comparative efficacy is unclear.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed to compare efficacy of LD + AC, LD, and CC for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Outcomes included leg pain, back pain, disability (each reported on a 0-100 scale), reherniation, and reoperation. Data were analyzed using random effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
This review included 14 comparative studies (8 randomized) involving 3947 patients-11 studies of LD versus CC (3232 patients), 3 studies of LD + AC versus LD (715 patients), and no studies of LD + AC versus CC. LD was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (mean difference [MD] -10, P < .001) and back pain (MD -7, P < .001). LD + AC was more effective than LD in reducing risk of reherniation (odds ratio 0.38, P < .001) and reoperation (odds ratio 0.33, P < .001). There was indirect evidence that LD + AC was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (MD -25, P = .003), back pain (MD -20, P = .02), and disability (MD -13, P = .02) although the treatment effect was smaller in randomized trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of a network meta-analysis show LD is more effective than CC in alleviating symptoms of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management. Further, LD + AC lowers risk of reherniation and reoperation versus LD and may improve patient symptoms more than CC.
Topics: Age Factors; Bone-Anchored Prosthesis; Conservative Treatment; Disability Evaluation; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Reoperation; Sex Factors
PubMed: 30762743
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014410 -
Global Spine Journal Feb 2017Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective surgical option for patients with cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, or deformity. Although ACDF is generally safe, dysphagia is a common complication. Despite its high incidence, prolonged postoperative dysphagia is poorly understood; its etiology remains relatively unknown, and its risk factors are widely debated.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for studies reporting complications for cervical diskectomy with plating. We recorded dysphagia events from all included studies and calculated effect summary values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Q values, and values.
RESULTS
Of the 7,780 retrieved articles, 14 met inclusion criteria. The overall dysphagia rate was 8.5% (95% CI 5.7 to 11.3%). The rate of moderate or severe dysphagia was 4.4% (0.4 to 8.4%). Follow-up times of <12, 12 to 24, and >24 months reported rates of 19.9% (6.0 to 33.7%), 7.0% (5.2 to 8.7%), and 7.6% (1.4 to 13.8%), respectively. Studies utilizing the Bazaz Dysphagia Score resulted in an increase in dysphagia diagnosis relative to studies with no outlined criteria (19.8%, 5.9 to 33.7% and 6.9%, 3.7 to 10.0%, respectively), indicating that the criteria used for dysphagia identification are critical. There was no difference in dysphagia rate with the use of autograft versus allograft.
CONCLUSIONS
This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of dysphagia across a heterogeneous group of surgeons, patients, and criteria. The classification scheme for dysphagia varied significantly within the literature. To ensure its diagnosis and identification, we recommend the use of a standardized, well-outlined method for dysphagia diagnosis.
PubMed: 28451514
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1583944 -
Safety of outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European Journal of Medical Research Aug 2016Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries and neurosurgical procedures performed to treat a variety of disorders in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries and neurosurgical procedures performed to treat a variety of disorders in the cervical spine. Over the last several years, ACDF has been done in the outpatient setting for less invasive approaches and exposures, as well as modified anesthetic and pain management techniques. Despite the fact that it may be innocuous in other parts of the body, complications in the spine can literally be fatal. The objective of this article is to evaluate the safety of outpatient surgery compared with inpatient surgery in the cervical spine for adult patients.
METHODS
The multiple databases including Pubmed, Springer, EMBASE, EBSCO and China Journal Full-text Database were adopted to search for the relevant studies in English or Chinese. Full-text articles involving to the safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery were selected. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Chi-square tests were conducted with SPSS 20.0 software.
RESULTS
Finally, 12 articles were included. The results of meta-analysis suggested that in the articles included, no death occurred, and compared with inpatient surgery, outpatient surgery has a similar risk (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI [0.98, 1.00], P = 0.02; P for heterogeneity = 0.47, I (2) = 0 %). An I (2) value of 0 % indicates no heterogeneity observed. All complications were occurred in both outpatients and inpatients. Among the studies selected, after the outpatient spine surgery, the highest incidences of complication were dysphagia (18/29) and hematoma (4/29). Compared with the overall complication rate in inpatient group, no significant difference was observed (x (2) = 1.820, P = 0.177).
CONCLUSION
In this study, outpatient surgery has a similar risk with inpatient surgery, and no difference of morbidity between outpatient and inpatient was found. Because of short operative time and moderate postoperative pain, we believe that outpatient cervical spine surgery is a safe and convenient alternative procedure, which also decrease the cost of care. Besides, postoperative complications including dysphagia and hematoma should be noticed.
Topics: Adult; Cervical Vertebrae; Deglutition Disorders; Diskectomy; Humans; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 27582129
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-016-0229-6 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Dec 2022Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34-59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = -2.55, 95% CI: - 3.25 to - 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = - 4.30, 95% CI: - 5.61 to - 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2-9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = - 3.22, 95% CI: - 5.21 to - 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI: - 2.67to - 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.96).
CONCLUSION
PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Neck Pain; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Diskectomy; Endoscopy
PubMed: 36456964
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03365-1 -
Pain Physician Mar 2016Traditional discectomy surgery (TDS) provides good or excellent results in clinical surgical discectomy but may induce neural adhesion, spinal structural damage,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traditional discectomy surgery (TDS) provides good or excellent results in clinical surgical discectomy but may induce neural adhesion, spinal structural damage, instability, and other complications. The potential advantages of full-endoscopic (FE) procedures over standard TDS include less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and an earlier return to work. However, more evidence is needed to support this new technology in clinical applications.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of FE and TDS.
STUDY DESIGN
Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, SinoMed, and Cochrane Library, were searched to identify clinical therapeutic trials comparing FE to TDS for discectomy.
RESULTS
Six trials comprising 730 patients were included, and the overall quality of the literature was moderate, including 4 Grade I levels of evidence (4 randomized controlled trials, [RCTs]) and 2 Grade II levels (2 non-RCTs). The pooled data revealed no difference in reoperation rates between FE and TDS (P = 0.94), but the complication rate was significantly lower in the FE group (3.86%) than in the TDS group (11.4%). Perioperative parameters (operation time, blood loss, hospitalization time, and return to work days) were significantly lower in the FE group (P < 0.05 for all groups using either score). Postoperative pain and neurology score assessments were conducted at 4 different time points at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Significant differences were detected in the following: lumbar North American Spine Society (NASS) pain at 6 months (P = 0.008); cervical NASS neurology at 6 months (P = 0.03); visual analog scale (VAS) score in leg at 3 months (P < 0.001); VAS score in arm at 24 months (P = 0.002); VAS score in neck at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after therapy (P = 0.003, P = 0.004, P = 0.01); and VAS score in neck at 3 months and 6 months (P = 0.01, P = 0.004). Moreover, the pooled data revealed no statistically significant differences in improvements in the Oswestry disability index (ODI), instability (X-ray), and Hilibrand criteria (P > 0.05 for all groups).
LIMITATIONS
Only 6 studies were included, 4 of which had the same authors. Between-study heterogeneity due to differences in socioeconomic factors, nutrition, and matching criteria is difficult to avoid.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this meta-analysis of 24 months of clinical results, we conclude that the FE procedure is as effective as TDS but has the additional benefits of lower complication rates and superior perioperative parameters. In addition, patients may experience less pain with FE techniques due to a smaller incision and less operative injury. However, large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diskectomy; Endoscopy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Reoperation
PubMed: 27008284
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2016The purpose of the study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of the study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials published from the time when databases were built to March 2016 that compared the clinical effectiveness of PELD and OLM surgical approaches for the treatment of LDH were acquired by a comprehensive search in four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane library). A total of 7 studies (1389 patients) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Pooled mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) and with 95% CIs were calculated for the outcomes.
RESULT
The results showed that there were no statistically between the PELD group and OLM group in terms of preoperative VAS-BP score (WMD = 0.03; 95% CI: -0.99 to 1.05; P = 0.95), postoperative VAS-BP score (WMD = -0.56; 95% CI: -1.43 to 0.31; P = 0.21), postoperative ODI (WMD = -0.98; 95% CI: -4.96 to 3.00; P = 0.63), complication rate (OR = 1.79; 95% CI: 0.95 to 3.37; P = 0.07) or reoperation rate (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.20; P = 0.09). PELD group was associated with shorter operation time (WMD = -12.83; 95% CI: -24.79 to -0.87; P = 0.04) and hospital stay (WMD = -5.49; 95% CI: -8.63 to -2.35; P = 0.0006).
CONCLUSION
The existing evidence indicate that no superiority exists between the two surgical approaches for the treatment of LDH in terms of functional outcome, complication rate and reoperation rate, in spite of that PELD surgical group can achieve shorter operation time and hospital stay than OLM surgical group.
Topics: Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27260312
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.05.061 -
International Journal of Surgery... Mar 2016The objective of this systematic review was to identify the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc... (Review)
Review
The objective of this systematic review was to identify the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) and to present its indications and techniques. We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane databases, searching for relevant studies of managing rLDH with PELD up to July 2015. Only papers published in English were included. Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted relevant data and assessed their methodological quality. The Cochrane Collaboration's Revman 5.3 software was used for data analyses among the controlled studies. At last, one randomized controlled trial (RCT), two non-randomized control studies and five observational studies including a total of 579 cases were selected for this system review. The methodological quality of these studies was low to modern. The mean overall improvement of leg pain (visual analogue scale) was 66.92% (50.6%-89.87%), back pain (visual analogue scale) 54.91% (29%-67.95%), Oswestry Disability Index 60.9% (40.7%-75%), global perceived effect (MacNab/other) 75.77% (60%-95%). The mean overall of complication rate was 4.89% (0%-9.76%), dural tear rate 0.1% (0%-4.9%), recurrence rate 6.3% (4%-10%), re-operation rate 3.66% (2.33%-4.8%). We conducted a meta-analysis among the control trials. Compared with Open discectomy (OD), PELD resulted in better outcomes in terms of operative time, blood loss, lower complication rates, but with no significance differences regarding hospital stay, second recurrence rate, Macnab criteria and pain reduction. In conclusion, according to the current evidence, PELD is an effective procedure for the treatment of rLDH in terms of reducing complication and shorting hospital course, comparing with OD. Therefore, we suggested that PELD was a feasible alternative to OD in the treatment of the rLDH in the condition of proper indication. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes are needed to further confirm these results.
Topics: Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Length of Stay; Lumbar Vertebrae; Observational Studies as Topic; Operative Time; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence
PubMed: 26805569
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.01.034 -
The Bone & Joint Journal Jul 2016Our aim was to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the incidence of post-operative epidural haematomas and wound infections after one-, or two-level,... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Our aim was to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the incidence of post-operative epidural haematomas and wound infections after one-, or two-level, non-complex, lumbar surgery for degenerative disease in patients with, or without post-operative wound drainage.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Studies were identified from PubMed and EMBASE, up to and including 27 August 2015, for papers describing one- or two-level lumbar discectomy and/or laminectomy for degenerative disease in adults which reported any form of subcutaneous or subfascial drainage.
RESULTS
Eight papers describing 1333 patients were included. Clinically relevant post-operative epidural haematomas occurred in two (0.15%), and wound infections in ten (0.75%) patients. Epidural haematomas occurred in two (0.47%) patients who had wound drainage (n = 423) and in none of those without wound drainage (n = 910). Wound infections occurred in two (0.47%) patients with wound drainage and in eight (0.88%) patients without wound drainage.
CONCLUSION
These data suggest that the routine use of a wound drain in non-complex lumbar surgery does not prevent post-operative epidural haematomas and that the absence of a drain does not lead to a significant change in the incidence of wound infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:984-9.
Topics: Diskectomy; Drainage; Hematoma, Epidural, Spinal; Humans; Laminectomy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Postoperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 27365478
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B7.37190 -
Spine Mar 2017Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this study was to (i) assess the risk of neurological injury after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) with and without intraoperative neuromonitoring (ION) and (ii) evaluate differences in the sensitivity and specificity of ION for ACSS.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Although ION is used to detect impending neurological injuries in deformity surgery, it's utility in ACSS remains controversial.
METHODS
A systematic search of multiple medical reference databases was conducted for studies on ION use for ACSS. Studies that included posterior cervical surgery were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Outcome measure was postoperative neurological injury.
RESULTS
The search yielded 10 studies totaling 26,357 patients. The weighted risk of neurological injury after ACSS was 0.64% (0.23-1.25). The weighted risk of neurological injury was 0.20% (0.05-0.47) for ACDFs compared with 1.02% (0.10-2.88) for corpectomies. For ACDFs, there was no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION (odds ratio, 0.726; confidence interval, CI, 0.287-1.833; P = 0.498). The pooled sensitivities and specificities of ION for ACSS are 71% (CI: 48%-87%) and 98% (CI: 92%-100%), respectively. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION [unimodal: 99% (CI: 97%-100%), multimodal: 92% (CI: 81%-96%), P = 0.0218]. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivities between unimodal and multimodal [68% vs. 88%, respectively, P = 0.949].
CONCLUSION
The risk of neurological injury after ACSS is low although procedures involving a corpectomy may carry a higher risk. For ACDFs, there is no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION use. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION and may minimize "subclinical" intraoperative alerts in ACSS.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
3.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Monitoring, Intraoperative; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 27390917
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001767