-
BMC Surgery Dec 2023To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of titanium mesh grafting compared with bone grafting in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of titanium mesh grafting compared with bone grafting in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched from their inception until April 2023. The outcome indicators for patients treated with titanium mesh grafting or bone grafting for spinal tuberculosis include surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, graft fusion time, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Spinal Cord Injury Grade E assessment, VAS score, lumbar pain score, post-graft kyphotic angle, and postoperative complications. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were used for quality assessment and evidence grading of clinical studies. Funnel plots and Begg's test were employed for bias assessment.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies were finally included, comprising 523 patients, with 267 cases of titanium mesh fixation and 256 cases of bone grafting. The meta-analysis showed no significant statistical differences in surgical duration (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = -7.20, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): -28.06 to 13.67, P = 0.499), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 16.22, 95% CI: -40.62 to 73.06, P = 0.576), graft fusion time (WMD = 0.97, 95% CI: -0.88 to 2.81, P = 0.304), ASIA Spinal Cord Injury Grade E assessment (Relative Risk (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.09, P = 0.346), and overall complications (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.55, P = 0.643). Differences in VAS score, ODI lumbar pain score, and post-graft kyphotic angle between the titanium mesh grafting group and the bone grafting group were not significant within the 95% CI range. The rate of postoperative implant subsidence was slightly lower in bone grafting than in titanium mesh grafting (RR = 9.30, 95% CI: 1.05 to 82.22, P = 0.045).
CONCLUSIONS
Both bone grafting and titanium mesh grafting are effective and safe for the surgery, with no significant statistical differences in the results. Considering the limitations of the present study, large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to further verify the reliability of this finding.
Topics: Humans; Blood Loss, Surgical; Bone Transplantation; Kyphosis; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Cord Injuries; Spinal Fusion; Surgical Mesh; Thoracic Vertebrae; Titanium; Treatment Outcome; Tuberculosis, Spinal
PubMed: 38087216
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02283-1 -
Spine Deformity May 2024The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-specific rods for adult spinal deformity. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-specific rods for adult spinal deformity.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed through an electronic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Human studies between 2012 and 2023 were included. Sample size, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), pelvic tilt (PT), operation time, blood loss, follow-up duration, and complications were recorded for each study when available.
RESULTS
Seven studies with a total of 304 adult spinal deformity patients of various etiologies were included. All studies reported SVA, and PT; two studies did not report PI-LL. Four studies reported planned radiographic outcomes. Two found a significant association between preoperative plan and postoperative outcome in all three outcomes. One found a significant association for PI-LL alone. The fourth found no significant associations. SVA improved in six of seven studies, PI-LL improved in all five, and three of seven studies found improved postoperative PT. Significance of these results varied greatly by study.
CONCLUSION
Preliminary evidence suggests potential benefits of PSRs in achieving optimal spino-pelvic parameters in ASD surgery. Nevertheless, conclusions regarding the superiority of PSRs over traditional rods must be judiciously drawn, given the heterogeneity of patients and study methodologies, potential confounding variables, and the absence of robust randomized controlled trials. Future investigations should concentrate on enhancing preoperative planning, standardizing surgical methodologies, isolating specific patient subgroups, and head-to-head comparisons with traditional rods to fully elucidate the impact of PSRs in ASD surgery.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Lordosis; Treatment Outcome; Spinal Curvatures; Spine; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 38265734
DOI: 10.1007/s43390-023-00805-8 -
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and... Aug 2023To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE).
RESULTS
We identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022308267.
Topics: Humans; Decompression, Surgical; Spinal Stenosis; Spondylolisthesis; Lumbar Vertebrae; Spinal Fusion; Pain; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36849239
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2022-330158 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2023Ankle arthrodesis is commonly performed to treat end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of fibular autograft might... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Ankle arthrodesis is commonly performed to treat end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of fibular autograft might increase the fusion rate and decrease the complication rate in ankle arthrodesis (AA) fixed using cannulated screws. To perform this PRISMA-compliant proportional meta-analysis, multiple databases were searched for studies in which patients undergone AA (using exclusively cannulated screws and augmented with fibular bone graft) were followed. The characteristics of the cohort, the study design, surgical details, the nonunion and complication rate at the longest follow-up were extracted and recorded. The modified Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS) was applied to appraise the quality of studies. Two groups were built: arthrodeses fixed with screws combined with cancellous autograft (G1) and arthrodeses fixed with screws combined with cancellous autograft and augmented with a lateral fibular onlay (G2). A third group (arthrodeses fixed with screws and no graft, G3) was extracted from previous literature for a further comparison. Overall, we included 306 ankles (296 patients) from ten series (ten studies). In G1 and G2 there were 118 ankles (111 patients) and 188 ankles (185 patients), respectively. In patients where cancellous autograft was used, a further augmentation with a fibular lateral strut autograft did not change significantly the nonunion (4% [95% CI 1-9] in G1 vs. 2% [95% CI 0-5) in G2, p = 0.99) nor the complication rate (18% [95% CI 0-36] in G1 vs. 13% [95% CI 6-21) in G2, p = 0.71). Upon comparison with 667 ankles (659 patients, G3) in which arthrodeses had been performed without grafting, the nonunion and complication rates did not differ significantly either (pooled estimates: 3% [95% CI 1-3) in G1 + G2 vs. 3% [95% CI 2-4] in G3, p = 0.73 for nonunion; 15% [8-23] in G1 + G2 vs. 13% [95% CI 9-17] in G3, p = 0.93 for complications). In ankle arthrodesis fixed with cannulated screws combined with cancellous autograft at the fusion site, a construct augmentation with a distal fibular onlay strut graft positioned laterally at the ankle joint does not reduce the risk of nonunion or complication. In general, the use of bone graft does not influence significantly the nonunion nor the complication rate as compared to non-grafted screw-fixed ankle arthrodeses.Kindly check and confirm the corresponding author mail id is correctly identified.It's all correct.
Topics: Humans; Ankle; Autografts; Ankle Joint; Fibula; Arthrodesis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37903965
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-46034-x -
Foot & Ankle International Jul 2023Ankle, hindfoot, and midfoot arthrodesis surgeries are standard procedures performed in orthopaedics to treat pain and functional disabilities. Although fusions can...
BACKGROUND
Ankle, hindfoot, and midfoot arthrodesis surgeries are standard procedures performed in orthopaedics to treat pain and functional disabilities. Although fusions can effectively improve pain and quality of life, nonunions remain a significant concern for surgeons. With the increased availability of computed tomography (CT), more surgeons rely on this modality for increased accuracy in determining whether a fusion was successful. The objective of this study was to report the rates of CT-confirmed fusion following ankle, hindfoot, or midfoot arthrodesis.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed using EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane central register from January 2000 to March 2020. Inclusion criteria included studies with adults (<18 years) that received 1 or multiple fusions of the ankle, hindfoot, or midfoot. At least 75% of the study cohort must have been evaluated by CT postoperatively. Basic information was collected, including journal, author, year published, and level of evidence. Other specific information was collected, including patient risk factors, fusion site, surgical technique and fixation, adjuncts, union rates, criteria for successful fusion (%), and time of CT. Once data were collected, a descriptive and comparative analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Included studies (26, n = 1300) had an overall CT-confirmed fusion rate of 78.7% (69.6-87.7). Individual joints had an overall fusion rate of 83.0% (73-92.9). The highest rate of union was in the talonavicular joint (TNJ).
CONCLUSION
These values are lower than previous studies, which found the same procedures to have greater than 90% fusion rates. With these updated figures, as confirmed by CT, surgeons will have better information for clinical decision making and when having informed consent conversations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ankle; Quality of Life; Ankle Joint; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Arthrodesis; Pain; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37226736
DOI: 10.1177/10711007231171087 -
Korean Journal of Neurotrauma Dec 2023Odontoid fractures are treated surgically through the anterior or posterior approach. Each surgical approach has its advantages and disadvantages, so the preferred... (Review)
Review
Does the Surgical Approach Matter in Treating Odontoid Fractures? A Comparison of Mechanical Complication Rates Between Anterior Versus Posterior Surgical Approaches: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
OBJECTIVE
Odontoid fractures are treated surgically through the anterior or posterior approach. Each surgical approach has its advantages and disadvantages, so the preferred approach remains debatable. There are few meta-analyses or systemic reviews on the mechanical complications of surgical treatment for odontoid fractures. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the operation-related morbidity, including mechanical complications, and mortality of patients with odontoid fractures, treated via the anterior or posterior approach.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for the studies up to October 2023 on the complication rate of the surgical treatment of odontoid fractures, related to the surgical approach. The risk ratios (RR) with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled to assess the mechanical complication rates, other complications, revision surgery, and mortality, depending on the surgical approach.
RESULTS
A total of 1,519 studies were retrieved using the search strategy, and 782 patients from 15 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Mechanical complications were significantly more frequent in the anterior surgical group with low heterogeneity. The incidences of fracture nonunion and revision surgery were also higher in the anterior surgery group. However, there was no significant difference in systemic complications and mortality rates between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
The posterior approach was more advantageous than the anterior approach in terms of mechanical complications, fusion rates, and incidence of revision surgery. However, further studies, should be performed to strengthen these results.
PubMed: 38222835
DOI: 10.13004/kjnt.2023.19.e64 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Mar 2024The clinical outcomes of patients who received a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with those of patients who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The clinical outcomes of patients who received a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with those of patients who did not receive a cervical collar.
METHODS
All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases as of 1 October 2023 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
Four studies with a total of 406 patients were included, and three of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis of the short-form 36 results revealed that wearing a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion was more beneficial (P < 0.05). However, it is important to note that when considering the Neck Disability Index at the final follow-up visit, not wearing a cervical collar was found to be more advantageous. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative cervical range of motion, fusion rate, or neck disability index at 6 weeks postoperatively (all P > 0.05) between the cervical collar group and the no cervical collar group.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in the 6-week postoperative cervical range of motion, fusion rate, or neck disability index between the cervical collar group and the no cervical collar group. However, compared to patients who did not wear a cervical collar, patients who did wear a cervical collar had better scores on the short form 36. Interestingly, at the final follow-up visit, the neck disability index scores were better in the no cervical collar group than in the cervical collar group. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023466583.
Topics: Humans; Cervical Vertebrae; Decompression, Surgical; Diskectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Diseases; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38454504
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04661-8 -
International Journal of Surgery... May 2024Consensus on the various interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) remains unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Consensus on the various interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) remains unclear.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites until 01 November 2023, to screen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the treatment of DLS. The seven most common DLS interventions [nonsurgical (NS), decompression only (DO), decompression plus fusion without internal fixation (DF), decompression plus fusion with internal fixation (DFI), endoscopic decompression plus fusion (EDF), endoscopic decompression (ED), and circumferential fusion (360F)] were compared. The primary (pain and disability) and secondary (complications, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction) outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS
Data involving 3273 patients in 16 RCTs comparing the efficacy of different interventions for DLS were reported. In terms of improving patient pain and dysfunction, there was a significant difference between surgical and NS. EDF showed the greatest improvement in short-term and long-term dysfunction (probability, 7.1 and 21.0%). Moreover, EDF had a higher complication rate (probability 70.8%), lower reoperation rate (probability, 20.2%), and caused greater blood loss (probability, 82.5%) than other surgical interventions. Endoscopic surgery had the shortest hospitalization time (EDF: probability, 42.6%; ED: probability, 3.9%). DF and DFI had the highest satisfaction scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the high complication rate of EDF, its advantages include improvement in pain, lower reoperation rate, and shorter hospitalization duration. Therefore, EDF may be a good option for patients with DLS as a less invasive surgical approach.
Topics: Humans; Spondylolisthesis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Network Meta-Analysis; Lumbar Vertebrae; Decompression, Surgical; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome; Reoperation
PubMed: 38446872
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001228 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jun 2024This study presents a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of pseudarthrosis risk factors following lumbar fusion procedures. The odds ratio (OR) and 95%... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study presents a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of pseudarthrosis risk factors following lumbar fusion procedures. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used for outcome measurements. The objective of this study was to identify the independent risk factors for pseudarthrosis after lumbar spinal fusion, which is crucial for mitigating morbidity and reoperation. Systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (1990-July 2021) were conducted using specific terms. The inclusion criteria included prospective and retrospective cohorts and case‒control series reporting ORs with 95% CIs from multivariate analysis. The quality assessment utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis, employing OR and 95% CI, assessed pseudarthrosis risk factors in lumbar fusion surgery, depicted in a forest plot. Of the 568 abstracts identified, 12 met the inclusion criteria (9 retrospective, 2006-2021). The 17 risk factors were categorized into clinical, radiographic, surgical, and bone turnover marker factors. The meta-analysis highlighted two significant clinical risk factors: age (95% CI 1.02-1.11; p = 0.005) and smoking (95% CI 1.68-5.44; p = 0.0002). The sole significant surgical risk factor was the number of fused levels (pooled OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.17-1.55; p < 0.0001). This study identified 17 risk factors for pseudarthrosis after lumbar fusion surgery, emphasizing age, smoking status, and the number of fusion levels. Prospective studies are warranted to explore additional risk factors and assess the impact of surgery and graft type.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fusion; Pseudarthrosis; Lumbar Vertebrae; Risk Factors; Age Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 38831392
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07531-w -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jan 2024This study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It aims to provide reference data for clinical decision-making.
METHODS
We identified randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies on Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating lumbar degenerative diseases based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were managed with Endnote X9 software and meta-analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Extracted outcomes included lower back VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS score, low back pain ODI score, complication rate, fusion rate, time to surgery, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
① Thirteen high-quality studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 1015 patients-493 in the Endo-TLIF group and 522 in the MIS-TLIF group. ② Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and final follow-up waist VAS scores, lower limb pain VAS score, ODI index, complications, and fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The MIS-TLIF group had a shorter operative time (MD = 29.13, 95% CI 10.86, 47.39, P = 0.002) than the Endo-TLIF group. However, the Endo-TLIF group had less blood loss (MD = - 76.75, 95% CI - 111.59, - 41.90, P < 0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 2.15, 95% CI - 2.95, - 1.34, P < 0.00001), and lower lumbar VAS scores both immediately postoperative (≤ 2 week) (MD = - 1.12, 95% CI - 1.53, - 0.71, P < 0.00001) compared to the MIS-TLIF group.
CONCLUSION
Meta-analysis results indicated that Endo-TLIF is similar to MIS-TLIF in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates. Although MIS-TLIF has a shorter operation time, Endo-TLIF can significantly reduce blood loss and hospital stay duration. Endo-TLIF offers the advantages of less surgical trauma, reduced blood loss, faster recovery, and early alleviation of postoperative back pain.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38281015
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04549-7