-
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Oct 2023This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) to conventional interbody fusion in lumbar... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) to conventional interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).
METHODS
An extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Research related to UBE-TLIF published up to November 2022 was reviewed. The relevant articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as an evaluation of the quality of the data extraction literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included six high-quality case-control trials (CCTs) involving 621 subjects. The clinical outcomes assessment showed no statistical differences in complication rates, fusion rates, leg pain VAS scores, or ODI scores. After UBE-TLIF, low back pain VAS scores were significantly improved with less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. A longer time was required for UBE-TLIF, however.
CONCLUSION
Despite the lack of sufficient high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this study, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that UBE-TLIF is more effective than open surgery in terms of length of stay, blood loss reduction during surgery, and improved low back pain after surgery. Nevertheless, the evidence will be supplemented in the future by more and better quality multicenter randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Endoscopy; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37875873
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06949-y -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2024Postoperative physical therapy emerges as a pivotal element of the rehabilitation process, aimed at enhancing functional recovery, managing pain, and mitigating the... (Review)
Review
Postoperative physical therapy emerges as a pivotal element of the rehabilitation process, aimed at enhancing functional recovery, managing pain, and mitigating the risk of further complications. The debate concerning the optimal timing of physical therapy intervention post-surgery remains unresolved; in particular, whether to initiate physical therapy immediately or to wait weeks is of particular interest. The aim of this study is to review the available literature regarding the optimal timing of physical therapy initiation and the outcomes obtained. This review was carried out in accordance with the Preferential Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. This search was carried out in February 2024. Only peer-reviewed articles were considered for inclusion. Fourteen studies were included. The primary outcomes assessed in the included studies were the following: 12-week and 12-month low back pain, return to work, function and disability, psychological status, patient satisfaction, and complications associated with early physical therapy. A meta-analysis was performed concerning low back pain after lumbar discectomy at 12 weeks and 12 months and complications after early physical therapy after lumbar discectomy and lumbar interbody fusion. A significant difference was found between early and standard physical therapy in terms of low back pain at 12-18 months ( = 0.0062); no significant differences were found in terms of complications, both for discectomy and arthrodesis. This review indicates that employing early rehabilitation strategies for intervertebral disc disease could enhance results in terms of pain and disability without an enhanced risk of complications.
PubMed: 38731082
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092553 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2023Zero-profile anchored spacers (ZAS) and plate-cage constructs (PCC) are currently employed when performing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Nevertheless,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Zero-profile anchored spacers (ZAS) and plate-cage constructs (PCC) are currently employed when performing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of both devices in bilevel ACDF remain controversial. The goal of our meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy and security among ZAS and PCC in bilevel ACDF.
METHODS
A search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify researches that compared ZAS with PCC for bilevel ACDF. Stata MP 17.0 software was used for this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Nine researches with a total of 580 patients were involved. In comparison to PCC, ZAS significantly reduced intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia rates. No significant differences were found concerning operation time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, the incidence of adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD) and implant sinking rates at last follow-up.
CONCLUSION
Compared to PCC, ZAS achieved similar efficacy and security in bilevel ACDF with respect to operative time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, implant sinking rates and ASD rates at final follow-up. It is worth noting that ZAS offered considerable benefits over conventional PCC for the reduction of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia. Therefore, for patients requiring bilevel ACDF, ZAS seems superior to PCC. Given the limitations of our study, larger prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to establish reliable proof to consolidate our conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Bone Plates; Deglutition Disorders; Diskectomy; Prospective Studies; Postoperative Complications; Cervical Vertebrae; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 37653510
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04134-4 -
Hand (New York, N.Y.) Jan 2024Proximal row carpectomy (PRC) with soft tissue interposition arthroplasty (STIA) presents an alternative approach to addressing wrist arthritis patterns involving the... (Review)
Review
Proximal row carpectomy (PRC) with soft tissue interposition arthroplasty (STIA) presents an alternative approach to addressing wrist arthritis patterns involving the capitate and/or lunate fossa, in lieu of wrist arthrodesis. This systematic review aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and techniques associated with PRC-STIA in patients with advanced wrist arthritis. We conducted a systematic review using databases including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria involved articles reporting outcomes of patients who underwent PRC-STIA with at least 1 relevant outcome. The analysis encompassed 8 studies involving 106 patients (108 wrists) meeting the inclusion criteria. A majority of patients were men (69%, n = 88), with a mean age of 54.4 ± 12.7 years and an average follow-up of 4.8 ± 6.3 years. Dorsal capsule was the most commonly interposed tissue (63%, 5 out of 8 studies). Patients receiving STIA achieved comparable patient-reported outcome measures scores to those undergoing PRC alone. Postoperative pain, measured by the Visual Analog Scale, averaged 3.7 ± 0.6. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score averaged 27.8 ± 8, while the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score averaged 41.5 ± 25.9. Five complications were reported in three studies. The addition of STIA into PRC for patients with capitate and/or lunate fossa cartilage degeneration yielded outcomes akin to traditional PRC, improving wrist function, pain, and grip strength in a safe and straightforward manner. Future research should prioritize high-quality comparative studies, extended follow-up periods, and standardized core outcome measures for a more comprehensive understanding of its role in wrist arthritis treatment.
PubMed: 38288722
DOI: 10.1177/15589447231221245 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jun 2024A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Accuracy and postoperative assessment of robot-assisted placement of pedicle screws during scoliosis surgery compared with conventional freehand technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The complexity of human anatomical structures and the variability of vertebral body structures in patients with scoliosis pose challenges in pedicle screw placement during spinal deformity correction surgery. Through technological advancements, robots have been introduced in spinal surgery to assist with pedicle screw placement.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and CNKI databases and comparative studies assessing the accuracy and postoperative efficacy of pedicle screw placement using robotic assistance or freehand techniques in patients with scoliosis were included. The analysis evaluated the accuracy of screw placement, operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications.
RESULTS
Seven studies comprising 584 patients were included in the meta-analysis, with 282 patients (48.3%) in the robot-assisted group and 320 (51.7%) in the freehand group. Robot-assisted placement showed significantly better clinically acceptable screw placement results compared with freehand placement (odds ratio [OR]: 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75-3.91, P < 0.0001). However, there were no statistically significant differences in achieving "perfect" screw placement between the two groups (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.95-2.46, P = 0.08). The robot-assisted group had longer operation durations (mean deviation [MD]: 43.64, 95% CI: 22.25-64.74, P < 0.0001) but shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD: - 1.12, 95% CI: - 2.15 to - 0.08, P = 0.03) than the freehand group. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates or intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. There was no significant difference in Cobb Angle between the two groups before and after operation.
CONCLUSION
Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement offers higher accuracy and shorter hospital stay than freehand placement in scoliosis surgery; although the robotics approach is associated with longer operative durations, similar complication rates and intraoperative blood loss.
Topics: Scoliosis; Humans; Pedicle Screws; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Spinal Fusion; Blood Loss, Surgical; Operative Time; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Period
PubMed: 38902785
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04848-z -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Feb 2024Both instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disease. However, it remains controversial as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Both instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disease. However, it remains controversial as whether posterior internal fixation is required when LLIF is performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical results between instrumented and stand-alone LLIF.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration Library up to March 2023 were searched for studies that compared instrumented and stand-alone LLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: interbody fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, reoperation rate, restoration of disc height, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, visual analog scale (VAS) scores of low-back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
RESULTS
13 studies involving 1063 patients were included. The pooled results showed that instrumented LLIF had higher fusion rate (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16-3.75; P = 0.01), lower cage subsidence (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.37-0.68; P < 0.001) and reoperation rate (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10-0.79; P = 0.02), and more restoration of disc height (MD 0.85; 95% CI 0.18-1.53; P = 0.01) than stand-alone LLIF. The ODI and VAS scores were similar between instrumented and stand-alone LLIF at the last follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this meta-analysis, instrumented LLIF is associated with higher rate of fusion, lower rate of cage subsidence and reoperation, and more restoration of disc height than stand-alone LLIF. For patients with high risk factors of cage subsidence, instrumented LLIF should be applied to reduce postoperative complications.
Topics: Humans; Lordosis; Spinal Fusion; Lumbosacral Region; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38310205
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07214-6 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Apr 2024To systematically evaluate the difference in clinical efficacy between two surgical approaches, oblique lateral approach and intervertebral foraminal approach, in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the difference in clinical efficacy between two surgical approaches, oblique lateral approach and intervertebral foraminal approach, in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
METHODS
English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science, were systematically searched using keywords such as "oblique lumbar interbody fusion" and "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion." Concurrently, Chinese databases, including CNKI, WanFang data, VIP, and CBM, were also queried using corresponding Chinese terms. The search spanned from January 2014 to February 2024, focusing on published studies in both Chinese and English that compared the clinical efficacy of OLIF and TLIF. The literature screening was conducted by reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts. Literature meeting the inclusion criteria underwent quality assessment, and relevant data were extracted. Statistical analysis and a meta-analysis of the observational data for both surgical groups were performed using Excel and RevMan 5.4 software. Findings revealed a total of 14 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, encompassing 877 patients. Of these, 414 patients were in the OLIF group, while 463 were in the TLIF group. Meta-analysis of the statistical data revealed that compared to TLIF, OLIF had a shorter average surgical duration (P < 0.05), reduced intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.05), shorter average hospital stay (P < 0.05), better improvement in postoperative VAS scores (P < 0.05), superior enhancement in postoperative ODI scores (P < 0.05), more effective restoration of disc height (P < 0.05), and better correction of lumbar lordosis (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between OLIF and TLIF in terms of the incidence of surgical complications (P > 0.05) and fusion rates (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
When treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, OLIF demonstrates significant advantages over TLIF in terms of shorter surgical duration, reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stay, superior improvement in postoperative VAS and ODI scores, better restoration of disc height, and more effective correction of lumbar lordosis.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Spondylolisthesis; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lordosis; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 38622724
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04703-1 -
World Neurosurgery May 2024Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for addressing cervical spine conditions. It involves the utilization of either cage plate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for addressing cervical spine conditions. It involves the utilization of either cage plate system (CPS) or stand-alone cage (SC). The objective of our study is to compare perioperative complications, patient-reported clinical outcomes measures, and radiographic outcomes of SC versus CPS in ACDF.
METHODS
We carried out a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of science, Medline, and Google Scholar. All studies comparing the outcomes between CPS versus SC in ACDF were included.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies, 33 observational and 8 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. We found that both devices demonstrated comparable effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF with respect to Japanese Orthopedic Association Score, Neck Disability Index score, visual analog score, and fusion rates. CPS demonstrated superior performance in maintaining disc height, cervical lordosis, and exhibited lower incidence rates of cage subsidence. SC showed significant advantages over CPS in terms of shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter duration of hospitalization, as well as lower incidence rates of early postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the included studies had monosegmented fusion, and there wasn't enough data to set recommendations for the multisegmented fusions. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to draw more definitive conclusions to provide evidence for clinicians to make clinical decisions.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fusion; Diskectomy; Cervical Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Bone Plates; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38382756
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.02.079 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of reduction vs. arthrodesis with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for low-grade lumbar...
Does intraoperative reduction result in better outcomes in low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of reduction vs. arthrodesis with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was implemented in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized or non-randomized controlled trials that were published until July 2023 that compared reduction vs. arthrodesis techniques with minimally invasive or open-TLIF for low-grade spondylolisthesis were selected. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data were extracted according to the predefined outcome measures, including operation time and intraoperative blood loss; short- and long-time follow-up of visual analog scale (VAS) back pain (VAS-BP) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); slippage and segmental lordosis; and the complication and fusion rate.
RESULTS
Five studies ( = 495 patients) were finally included. All of them were retrospective cohort studies with Evidence Level II. The pooled data revealed that both techniques had similar patient-reported outcomes (VAS, ODI, and good and excellent rate) during short- and long-term follow-up. In addition, no significant differences were observed in the fusion and complication rates. However, although the reduction group did achieve better slippage correction, it was associated with increased operation time and intraoperative blood loss compared with the arthrodesis group.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, intraoperative reduction does not result in better clinical outcomes in low-grade spondylolisthesis after minimally invasive or open-TLIF, and the arthrodesis technique could be an alternative.
PubMed: 38681050
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1350064 -
Bone & Joint Open Mar 2024Posterior malleolar (PM) fractures are commonly associated with ankle fractures, pilon fractures, and to a lesser extent tibial shaft fractures. The tibialis posterior...
AIMS
Posterior malleolar (PM) fractures are commonly associated with ankle fractures, pilon fractures, and to a lesser extent tibial shaft fractures. The tibialis posterior (TP) tendon entrapment is a rare complication associated with PM fractures. If undiagnosed, TP entrapment is associated with complications, ranging from reduced range of ankle movement to instability and pes planus deformities, which require further surgeries including radical treatments such as arthrodesis.
METHODS
The inclusion criteria applied in PubMed, Scopus, and Medline database searches were: all adult studies published between 2012 and 2022; and studies written in English. Outcome of TP entrapment in patients with ankle injuries was assessed by two reviewers independently.
RESULTS
Four retrospective studies and eight case reports were accepted in this systematic review. Collectively there were 489 Pilon fractures, 77 of which presented with TP entrapment (15.75%). There were 28 trimalleolar fractures, 12 of which presented with TP entrapment (42.86%). All the case report studies reported inability to reduce the fractures at initial presentation. The diagnosis of TP entrapment was made in the early period in two (25%) cases, and delayed diagnosis in six (75%) cases reported. Using modified Clavien-Dindo complication classification, 60 (67%) of the injuries reported grade IIIa complications and 29 (33%) grade IIIb complications.
CONCLUSION
TP tendon was the commonest tendon injury associated with pilon fracture and, to a lesser extent, trimalleolar ankle fracture. Early identification using a clinical suspicion and CT imaging could lead to early management of TP entrapment in these injuries, which could lead to better patient outcomes and reduced morbidity.
PubMed: 38545805
DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.53.BJO-2023-0139