-
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 Nov 2020Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard treatment for this cervical radiculopathy. Posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF), an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard treatment for this cervical radiculopathy. Posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF), an effective alternative to ACDF, is becoming widely used by an increasing number of surgeons. However, comparisons of the clinical outcomes of ACDF and PECF remain poorly explored. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare visual analog scale (VAS)-arm scores, VAS-neck scores, neck disability index (NDI) scores, reoperation, and complications in PECF and ACDF.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We comprehensively searched electronic databases or platforms, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Center, using the PRISMA guidelines. The required information, including VAS-arm scores, VAS-neck scores, NDI scores, reoperation, and complications, was extracted from qualified studies and independently tested and compared by 2 researchers. The methodological index for nonrandomized studies was used to evaluate study quality.
RESULTS
Nine studies consisting of 230 males and 256 females were included. The mean age of the included patients was 49.6 years, and the mean follow-up time was 20.6 months. The VAS-arm scores were significantly higher, and VAS-neck scores and NDI scores of PECF showed greater improvement trends for PECF than ACDF. The complication proportion of patients with PECF was lower, while the proportion of reoperation was similar between PECF and ACDF. ACDF was the most common revision surgery. The most common complication of PECF was transient paresthesia.
CONCLUSION
Compared with ACDF, PECF is safe and effective in patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy without myelopathy, and PECF does not increase the probability of reoperation and complications.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Disability Evaluation; Endoscopy; Foraminotomy; Humans; Pain Measurement; Postoperative Complications; Radiculopathy; Reoperation
PubMed: 33157922
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022744 -
Medicine Jun 2020To systematically analyze the differences of complications between percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically analyze the differences of complications between percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, and Wanfang Data for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 15 articles with 1156 study subjects were included, with 550 patients in PTED group and 606 patients in PIED group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that postoperative dysesthesia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-1.13), nerve root injury (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.30-5.02), surgical site wound complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.29-5.40), recurrence (OR = 1.09, 95% CI, 0.54-2.21), conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.33-4.81), incomplete decompression (OR = 1.62, 95% CI, 0.43-6.09), and total complication (OR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.49-1.06) showed no significant differences between the PTED group and the PIED group, while the PTED group had significantly better results in dural tear compared with the PIED group (OR = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.13-0.79).
CONCLUSIONS
Dural tear was significantly less occured in PTED compared with PIED. The postoperative dysesthesia, nerve root injury, surgical site wound complications, recurrence, conversion to open surgery, incomplete decompression, and total complication did not differ significantly between PTED and PIED in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Topics: Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 32569205
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020709 -
Medicine Jan 2020To compare the effectiveness and safety of epidural anesthesia (EA) with those of local anesthesia (LA) for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of effectiveness and safety between epidural anesthesia vs local anesthesia for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of epidural anesthesia (EA) with those of local anesthesia (LA) for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and provide reference data for clinical decision-making.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, Medline, ScienceDirect, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to June 2019 in order to identify randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing EA and LA for PTED. Studies assessing at least 2 of the following indicators were eligible: surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, satisfaction rate, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications. Two assessors evaluated the quality of the literature using the Cochrane Handbook or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.3 software.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 1000 patients were included. The LA and EA groups included 473 and 527 patients, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed significant intergroup differences in the intraoperative (P < .00001) and postoperative (P < .00001) lumbar VAS scores, intraoperative (P < .00001) and postoperative (P = .001) leg VAS scores, and anesthesia satisfaction rate (P < .00001), with EA being superior to LA in all aspects. There were no significant intergroup differences in the surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, postoperative ODI, and complication rate.
CONCLUSION
EA is as safe as LA and produces better anesthetic effects than does LA in patients undergoing PTED. Therefore, it should be promoted as a reliable anesthetic technique for PTED.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Local; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Humans
PubMed: 31895822
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018629