Sacropelvic Fixation for Adult Deformity Surgery Comparing Iliac Screw and Sacral 2 Alar-Iliac Screw Fixation: Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurospine Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-31 DOI:10.14245/ns.2346654.327
Hong Kyung Shin, Jin Hoon Park, Sang Ryong Jeon, Sung Woo Roh, Dae Jean Jo, Seung-Jae Hyun, Yong-Jae Cho
{"title":"Sacropelvic Fixation for Adult Deformity Surgery Comparing Iliac Screw and Sacral 2 Alar-Iliac Screw Fixation: Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Hong Kyung Shin, Jin Hoon Park, Sang Ryong Jeon, Sung Woo Roh, Dae Jean Jo, Seung-Jae Hyun, Yong-Jae Cho","doi":"10.14245/ns.2346654.327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Two commonly used techniques for spinopelvic fixation in adult deformity surgery are iliac screw (IS) and sacral 2 alar-iliac screw (S2AI) fixations. In this article, we systematically meta-analyzed the complications of sacropelvic fixation for adult deformity surgery comparing IS and S2AI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane clinical trial databases were systematically searched until March 29, 2023. The proportion of postoperative complications, including implant failure, revision, screw prominence, and wound complications after sacropelvic fixation, were pooled with a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses for the method of sacropelvic fixation were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies with a total of 1,931 patients (IS, 925 patients; S2AI, 1,006 patients) were included. The pooled proportion of implant failure was not statistically different between the IS and S2AI groups (21.9% and 18.9%, respectively) (p = 0.59). However, revision was higher in the IS group (21.0%) than that in the S2AI group (8.5%) (p = 0.02). Additionally, screw prominence was higher in the IS group (9.6%) than that in the S2AI group (0.0%) (p < 0.01), and wound complication was also higher in the IS group (31.7%) than that in the S2AI group (3.9%) (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IS and S2AI fixations showed that both techniques had similar outcomes in terms of implant failure. However, S2AI was revealed to have better outcomes than IS in terms of revision, screw prominence, and wound complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":19269,"journal":{"name":"Neurospine","volume":"20 4","pages":"1469-1476"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10762417/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurospine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2346654.327","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Two commonly used techniques for spinopelvic fixation in adult deformity surgery are iliac screw (IS) and sacral 2 alar-iliac screw (S2AI) fixations. In this article, we systematically meta-analyzed the complications of sacropelvic fixation for adult deformity surgery comparing IS and S2AI.

Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane clinical trial databases were systematically searched until March 29, 2023. The proportion of postoperative complications, including implant failure, revision, screw prominence, and wound complications after sacropelvic fixation, were pooled with a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses for the method of sacropelvic fixation were conducted.

Results: Ten studies with a total of 1,931 patients (IS, 925 patients; S2AI, 1,006 patients) were included. The pooled proportion of implant failure was not statistically different between the IS and S2AI groups (21.9% and 18.9%, respectively) (p = 0.59). However, revision was higher in the IS group (21.0%) than that in the S2AI group (8.5%) (p = 0.02). Additionally, screw prominence was higher in the IS group (9.6%) than that in the S2AI group (0.0%) (p < 0.01), and wound complication was also higher in the IS group (31.7%) than that in the S2AI group (3.9%) (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: IS and S2AI fixations showed that both techniques had similar outcomes in terms of implant failure. However, S2AI was revealed to have better outcomes than IS in terms of revision, screw prominence, and wound complications.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人畸形手术中的骶骨骨盆固定术,比较髂骨螺钉和骶骨 2 Alar-Iliac 螺钉固定术:系统综述和最新元分析。
目的:成人畸形手术中常用的两种脊柱骨盆固定技术是髂骨螺钉(IS)和骶骨2椎弓根-髂骨螺钉(S2AI)固定。本文对成人畸形手术中骶骨骨盆固定的并发症进行了系统的荟萃分析,并对 IS 和 S2AI 进行了比较:方法:系统检索了 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 临床试验数据库,检索时间截止到 2023 年 3 月 29 日。采用随机效应模型对骶骨固定术后并发症(包括植入失败、翻修、螺钉突出和伤口并发症)的比例进行了汇总。对骶骨固定方法进行了分组分析:结果:共纳入了 10 项研究,共计 1,931 名患者(IS,925 名患者;S2AI,1,006 名患者)。IS组和S2AI组植入失败的总比例无统计学差异(分别为21.9%和18.9%)(p = 0.59)。但是,IS 组的翻修率(21.0%)高于 S2AI 组(8.5%)(p = 0.02)。此外,IS组螺钉突出率(9.6%)高于S2AI组(0.0%)(P < 0.01),IS组伤口并发症发生率(31.7%)也高于S2AI组(3.9%)(P < 0.01):结论:IS和S2AI固定显示,两种技术在植入失败方面的结果相似。结论:IS 和 S2AI 固定术显示,两种技术在植入失败方面的结果相似,但在翻修、螺钉突出和伤口并发症方面,S2AI 的结果优于 IS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurospine
Neurospine Multiple-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
93
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Self-Developed Mobility Augmented Reality System Versus Conventional X-rays for Spine Positioning in Intraspinal Tumor Surgery: A Case-Control Study. An Experimental Model for Fluid Dynamics and Pressures During Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy. Application of the "Klotski Technique" in Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament With En Bloc Type Dura Ossification. Artificial Intelligence Detection of Cervical Spine Fractures Using Convolutional Neural Network Models. Biomechanical Study of Atlanto-occipital Instability in Type II Basilar Invagination: A Finite Element Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1