-
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Apr 2024This study aimed to assess the impact of full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (FETD) on clinical outcomes and complications in both obese and non-obese patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Comparative outcomes of obese and non-obese patients with lumbar disc herniation receiving full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the impact of full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (FETD) on clinical outcomes and complications in both obese and non-obese patients presenting with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
METHODS
A systematic search of relevant literature was conducted across various primary databases until November 18, 2023. Operative time and hospitalization were evaluated. Clinical outcomes included preoperative and postoperative assessments of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, conducted to delineate improvements at 3 months postoperatively and during the final follow-up, respectively. Complications were also documented.
RESULTS
Four retrospective studies meeting inclusion criteria provided a collective cohort of 258 patients. Obese patients undergoing FETD experienced significantly longer operative times compared to non-obese counterparts (P = 0.0003). Conversely, no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in hospitalization duration, improvement of VAS for back and leg pain scores at 3 months postoperatively and final follow-up, improvement of ODI at 3 months postoperatively and final follow-up. Furthermore, the overall rate of postoperative complications was higher in the obese group (P = 0.02). The obese group demonstrated a total incidence of complications of 17.17%, notably higher than the lower rate of 9.43% observed in the non-obese group.
CONCLUSION
The utilization of FETD for managing LDH in individuals with obesity is associated with prolonged operative times and a higher total complication rate compared to their non-obese counterparts. Nevertheless, it remains a safe and effective surgical intervention for treating herniated lumbar discs in the context of obesity.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Obesity; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Endoscopy; Diskectomy; Postoperative Complications; Operative Time; Pain Measurement; Disability Evaluation; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38654321
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07455-5 -
Turkish Neurosurgery 2024To assess, and to compare the efficacy of anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF).
AIM
To assess, and to compare the efficacy of anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Major databases, registries, and other relevant material were screened for prospective trials directly comparing AECD and ACDF. No restrictions were imposed. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to high heterogeneity.
RESULTS
After screening a total of 1339 articles, 2 studies enrolling 225 patients were included. One of these is a randomizedcontrolled- trial, including 120 patients, with a 14% lost to follow-up, showing no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the neck/arm and the North American Spine Society criteria regarding pain/neurological status. Radiological follow-up showed no adjacent-segment disease, with both groups presenting a statistically non-significant progression of a pre-existing adjacent-disc degeneration, and no difference in kyphosis. Recurrence was registered in 7.4% and 6.1% of patients who underwent AECD and ACDF, respectively. No statistically apparent differences in complications were observed. The second is a cohort study, including 135 patients with a 14.8% lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference was found in clinical outcomes assessed using the VAS of the neck/arm and the neck disability index. No radiological data were provided. Recurrence was reported in 4% and 2% of patients in the AECD and ACDF group, respectively. No remarkable differences in complications were reported. Both studies reported that the surgical time was statistically shorter in AECD.
CONCLUSION
A definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. Single-level AECD seems to have results equivalent to ACDF, presenting even some benefits. Technical limitations combined with required surgical skills and experience should be considered. We recommend cautious employment in anticipation of future updates.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy; Spinal Fusion; Cervical Vertebrae; Endoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
PubMed: 38650569
DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.44424-23.2 -
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 -
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 -
Pain Physician Jan 2024Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is a subtype characterized by calcification, leading to increased surgical complexity. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is a subtype characterized by calcification, leading to increased surgical complexity. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a minimally invasive technique, but its effectiveness and complications in CLDH patients remain to be fully evaluated.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and complications of PELD in treating CLDH patients.
STUDY DESIGN
A retrospective cohort study combined with a systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Department of Pain Medicine, an affiliated hospital of a university.
METHODS
Data from patients who underwent PELD in our department between March 2020 and May 2021 were collected. Forty CLDH patients were included in the study group, and equally matched cases with uncalcified lumbar disc herniation (UCLDH) served as controls. A systematic search was conducted on October 5, 2022, using EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, the China Biology Medicine disk, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled results.
RESULTS
Eighty patients were included in the retrospective cohort, and 41 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Both the retrospective cohort and meta-analysis consistently showed a significant decrease in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in the CLDH group after the operation. In the retrospective cohort, the excellent or good rate according to the MacNab classification was 85%, with no reported complications. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled excellent or good rate of 91.8% and a low complication rate of 2.9%. Combining the findings from our retrospective cohort and meta-analysis, we observed that the CLDH group had longer operation times and slightly higher postoperative ODI scores compared to the UCLDH group.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample size and lack of long-term follow-up in the retrospective cohort, as well as limited inclusion of comparative studies in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
PELD is an effective and safe treatment option for CLDH patients. In comparison to UCLDH patients, CLDH patients may experience longer operation times and slightly slower functional recovery than those with UCLDH.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38285024
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Oct 2023Given the inconclusive literature on operative time, pain relief, functional outcomes, and complications, this meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of Unilateral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy and micro-endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Given the inconclusive literature on operative time, pain relief, functional outcomes, and complications, this meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE) and Micro-Endoscopic Discectomy (MED) in treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (DLSS).
METHODS
A thorough literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and based on the PICO framework. The study interrogated four primary databases-PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library-on August 16, 2023, without time restrictions. The search employed a strategic selection of keywords and was devoid of language barriers. Studies were included based on strict criteria, such as the diagnosis, surgical intervention types, and specific outcome measures. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and statistical analysis was executed through Stata version 17.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis incorporated 9 articles out of an initial yield of 1,136 potential studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in surgical duration, but no statistically significant difference was identified (MD = - 2.11, P = 0.56). For VAS scores assessing lumbar and leg pain, UBE was statistically superior to MED (MD = - 0.18, P = 0.013; MD = - 0.15, P = 0.006, respectively). ODI scores demonstrated no significant difference between the two surgical methods (MD = - 0.57, P = 0.26). UBE had a lower incidence of complications compared to those receiving MED (OR = 0.54, P = 0.036).
CONCLUSIONS
UBE and MED exhibited comparable surgical durations and disability outcomes as measured by ODI. However, UBE demonstrated superior efficacy in alleviating lumbar and leg pain based on VAS scores. The findings present an intricate evaluation of the two surgical interventions for DLSS, lending valuable insights for clinical decision-making.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Stenosis; Endoscopy; Diskectomy; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37907922
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04322-2 -
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 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jul 2023The clinical outcomes of using a tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation were evaluated by comparison with conventional microdiscectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of outcomes between tubular microdiscectomy and conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
The clinical outcomes of using a tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation were evaluated by comparison with conventional microdiscectomy.
METHODS
All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases as of 1 May 2023 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included four randomized controlled studies with a total of 523 patients. The results showed that using tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation was more effective than conventional microdiscectomy in improving the Oswestry Disability Index (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in operating time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale, reoperation rate, postoperative recurrence rate, dural tear incidence, and complications rate (all P > 0.05) between the tubular microdiscectomy and conventional microdiscectomy groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our meta-analysis, it was found that the tubular microdiscectomy group had better outcomes than the conventional microdiscectomy group in terms of Oswestry Disability Index. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operating time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale, reoperation rate, postoperative recurrence rate, dural tear incidence, and complications rate. Current research suggests that tubular microdiscectomy can achieve clinical results similar to those of conventional microdiscectomy. PROSPERO registration number is: CRD42023407995.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Blood Loss, Surgical; Lumbar Vertebrae; Microsurgery; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Diskectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37400862
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03962-8