-
BMC Surgery Nov 2023To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.
RESULTS
Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.
CONCLUSION
Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Spinal Stenosis; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Spinal Fusion; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37968633
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02242-w -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Nov 2023Although oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has produced good results for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs), its efficacy vis-a-vis posterior lumbar interbody... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Although oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has produced good results for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs), its efficacy vis-a-vis posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of OLIF and PLIF for the treatment of LDDs.
METHODS
A comprehensive assessment of the literature was conducted, and the quality of retrieved studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Clinical parameters included the visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for pain, disability, and functional levels. Statistical analysis related to operative time, intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, lumbar lordosis angle, postoperative disc height, and complication rates was performed. The PROSPERO number for the present systematic review is CRD42023406695.
RESULTS
In total, 574 patients (287 for OLIF, 287 for PLIF) from eight studies were included. The combined mean postoperative difference in ODI and lumbar VAS scores was - 1.22 and - 0.43, respectively. In postoperative disc, height between OLIF and PLIF was 2.05. The combined advantage ratio of the total surgical complication rate and the mean difference in lumbar lordosis angle between OLIF and PLIF were 0.46 and 1.72, respectively. The combined mean difference in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between OLIF and PLIF was - 128.67 and - 2.32, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Both the OLIF and PLIF interventions showed good clinical efficacy for LDDs. However, OLIF demonstrated a superior advantage in terms of intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, degree of postoperative disc height recovery, and postoperative complication rate.
Topics: Humans; Lordosis; Spinal Fusion; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Lumbosacral Region; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37950267
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04312-4 -
European Review For Medical and... Oct 2023This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety between titanium mesh cage (TMC) and nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 cage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety between titanium mesh cage (TMC) and nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 cage (n-HA/PA66) in the surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) through anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We implemented a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases, including Wanfang, China Knowledge Network, China Biomedical Literature Database, Wipu, PubMed, Cochran, Embase, and Web of Science. To ensure a thorough examination of available literature, the databases were searched from their inception to January 2023. Two independent researchers evaluated the quality of the included studies by using established criteria. We used RevMan 5.4 (Review Manager Web, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) to facilitate data extraction and analysis.
RESULTS
This analysis included seven controlled clinical studies. The meta-analysis results showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of operating time, intraoperative bleeding, preoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, preoperative and final follow-up C2-7 Cobb angles, and intervertebral fusion rate (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the final follow-up JOA [MD = 0.77, 95% CI (0.58, 0.97), p < 0.00001], VAS [MD = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.71, -0.30), p < 0.00001], and sedimentation rate [RR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.18, 0.48), p < 0.00001].
CONCLUSIONS
The use of n-HA/PA66 in ACCF for treating CSM is safe and effective treatment with positive clinical efficacy. In addition, n-HA/PA66 has both effective clinical efficacy and significantly lower fusion settling rates compared to TMC.
Topics: Humans; Nylons; Durapatite; Spinal Fusion; Spondylosis; Treatment Outcome; Spinal Cord Diseases; Cervical Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37916330
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202310_34136 -
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 -
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 -
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... Feb 2024The number of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery after previous lumbar arthrodesis (LA) is rising. Literature suggests that LA may significantly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The number of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery after previous lumbar arthrodesis (LA) is rising. Literature suggests that LA may significantly impact pelvic biomechanics and potentially compromise the success of prosthetic hip replacement. This study aims to evaluate complication rates, dislocation rates, and revision rates in patients with prior LA undergoing THA surgery compared to those undergoing THA surgery without prior LA.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A PICOS template was developed to ensure a structured approach. The search for relevant studies was performed across five databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane. The selected articles were evaluated based on the Levels of Evidence (LoE) criteria. The Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS) was employed to analyze the retrospective studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). For the outcomes that allowed for a meta-analysis performed using R software, a p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
The final analysis included seventeen studies comprising a total of 3,139,164 cases of THA. Among these cases, 3,081,137 underwent THA surgery alone, while 58,027 patients underwent THA with a previous LA. The study investigated various factors, including dislocation rates, revision rates, and complication, as well as the surgical approach and type of implant used, for both the THA-only group and the group of patients who underwent THA with prior LA. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) for all variables studied, favoring the group of patients who underwent THA alone without prior LA.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant superiority in all analyzed outcomes for patients who underwent THA-only without prior LA. Specifically, patients with isolated THA implants experienced significantly lower incidences of THA dislocation, wound complications, periprosthetic joint infection, revision, and mechanical complications.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Complications; Joint Dislocations; Arthrodesis; Reoperation; Hip Dislocation
PubMed: 37847406
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03761-1 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2023The first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint is a frequently loaded joint, handling loads up to 90% of bodyweight. First MTP arthrodesis is a frequently performed procedure... (Review)
Review
The first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint is a frequently loaded joint, handling loads up to 90% of bodyweight. First MTP arthrodesis is a frequently performed procedure designed to improve pain in patients with degenerative MTP joint disease. There are a wide variety of fixation constructs for this procedure without consensus on the most effective method. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical integrity of various constructs utilized for first MTP arthrodesis. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 18 June 2023. Articles discussing the biomechanics of first MTP arthrodesis constructs were included. A total of 168 articles were retrieved. A total of 20 articles involving 446 cadaveric and synthetic bone constructs were included in the final review. Of the six articles comparing dorsal plating with compression screws to crossed interfragmentary screws, five found that dorsal plating had significantly higher stiffness. All three studies assessing shape-memory staples found them to be significantly less stable than crossed screws or dorsal plates alone. Both studies evaluating fully threaded screws found them to be stronger than crossed cancellous screws. Wedge resections have been shown to be 10 times stronger than standard planar or conical excision. Dorsal plating with compression screws is the gold standard for MTP arthrodesis. However, more research into newer methods such as fully threaded screws and wedge resections with an increased focus on translation to clinical outcomes is needed.
PubMed: 37834699
DOI: 10.3390/ma16196562 -
Hand (New York, N.Y.) Sep 2023Ulnar-sided wrist pain can be attributed to various bony and ligamentous structures. The purpose of this review is to compare outcomes following surgical interventions... (Review)
Review
Ulnar-sided wrist pain can be attributed to various bony and ligamentous structures. The purpose of this review is to compare outcomes following surgical interventions for isolated lunotriquetral (LT) interosseous ligament injuries in adults. We assessed 202 procedures from 9 retrospective case series studies of low to moderate quality based on the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale. The comparative outcomes (ie, range of motion, pain, strength, quality of life, complications, return to work, and patient satisfaction) were aggregated and categorized under arthrodesis, capsulodesis, ligament repairs and reconstruction, and ulna shortening osteotomy procedures. Although the comparison of outcomes was largely inconclusive due to the heterogeneity and the omission of preoperative characteristic data, we did observe higher complications and reoperation rates post LT arthrodesis. It is recommended that all outcomes be standardized and presented uniformly with best practices developed to better characterize the injury's severity and integrity in future studies.
PubMed: 37771154
DOI: 10.1177/15589447231198268 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Sep 2023The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases by meta-analysis.
METHODS
A computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) was conducted from the inception of the each database to April 2023. The searched literature was then screened according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The critical data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager software5.4.1. Pooled effects were calculated on the basis of data attributes by mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies and 949 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, 445 in the UBE-LIF group and 504 in the MIS-TLIF group. UBE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood flow, postoperative drainage flow, duration of hospital stay, VAS score for low back pain and ODI score, but the operative time was longer than MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rate, modified Macnab grading criteria, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, lumbar lordosis, intervertebral disk height.
CONCLUSION
Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective surgical modalities for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. They have similar treatment outcomes, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study has been registered at INPLASY.COM (No. INPLASY202320087).
Topics: Animals; Humans; Endoscopy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37667363
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04138-0 -
Medicine Aug 2023To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.
METHODS
Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1-2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate.
Topics: Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Spinal Fusion; Endoscopy; Blood Loss, Surgical; Postoperative Hemorrhage
PubMed: 37653732
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034705