A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Reconstruction with Vascularised vs Non-Vascularised Bone Graft after Surgical Resection of Primary Malignant and Non-Malignant Bone Tumors.

IF 0.4 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.55095/achot2024/020
R Patel, G McConaghie, M M Khan, W Gibson, R Singh, R Banerjee
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Reconstruction with Vascularised vs Non-Vascularised Bone Graft after Surgical Resection of Primary Malignant and Non-Malignant Bone Tumors.","authors":"R Patel, G McConaghie, M M Khan, W Gibson, R Singh, R Banerjee","doi":"10.55095/achot2024/020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of the study: </strong>Vascularised bone grafting (VBG) and non-vascularised bone grafting (NVBG) are crucial biological reconstructive procedures extensively employed in the management of bone tumours. The principal aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the post-resection outcomes associated with the utilisation of vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafts.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A comprehensive and systematic literature review spanning the years 2013 to 2023 was meticulously executed, utilising prominent online databases including PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were restricted to comparative articles that specifically addressed outcomes pertaining to defect restoration following bone tumour resection via vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafting techniques. The quality of research methodologies was assessed using the Oxford Quality Scoring System for randomised trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomised comparative studies. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 24. Key outcome measures encompassed the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score (MSTS), bone union duration, and the incidence of post-operative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This analysis incorporated four clinical publications, enrolling a total of 178 participants (comprising 92 males and 86 females), with 90 patients subjected to VBG and 88 to NVBG procedures. The primary endpoints of interest encompassed MSTS scores and bone union durations. Although no statistically significant distinction was observed in the complication rates between the two cohorts, it is noteworthy that VBG exhibited a markedly superior bone union rate (P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our systematic evaluation revealed that VBG facilitates expedited bone union, thereby contributing to accelerated patient recovery. Notably, complication rates and functional outcomes were comparable between the VBG and NVBG groups. Moreover, the correlation between bone union duration and functional scores following VBG and NVBG merits further investigation.</p><p><strong>Key words: </strong>reconstruction techniques, vascularised bone grafting, non-vascularised bone grafting, bone tumor, resection.</p>","PeriodicalId":6980,"journal":{"name":"Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca","volume":"91 3","pages":"143-150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55095/achot2024/020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of the study: Vascularised bone grafting (VBG) and non-vascularised bone grafting (NVBG) are crucial biological reconstructive procedures extensively employed in the management of bone tumours. The principal aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the post-resection outcomes associated with the utilisation of vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafts.

Material and methods: A comprehensive and systematic literature review spanning the years 2013 to 2023 was meticulously executed, utilising prominent online databases including PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were restricted to comparative articles that specifically addressed outcomes pertaining to defect restoration following bone tumour resection via vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafting techniques. The quality of research methodologies was assessed using the Oxford Quality Scoring System for randomised trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomised comparative studies. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 24. Key outcome measures encompassed the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score (MSTS), bone union duration, and the incidence of post-operative complications.

Results: This analysis incorporated four clinical publications, enrolling a total of 178 participants (comprising 92 males and 86 females), with 90 patients subjected to VBG and 88 to NVBG procedures. The primary endpoints of interest encompassed MSTS scores and bone union durations. Although no statistically significant distinction was observed in the complication rates between the two cohorts, it is noteworthy that VBG exhibited a markedly superior bone union rate (P<0.001).

Conclusions: Our systematic evaluation revealed that VBG facilitates expedited bone union, thereby contributing to accelerated patient recovery. Notably, complication rates and functional outcomes were comparable between the VBG and NVBG groups. Moreover, the correlation between bone union duration and functional scores following VBG and NVBG merits further investigation.

Key words: reconstruction techniques, vascularised bone grafting, non-vascularised bone grafting, bone tumor, resection.

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
原发性恶性和非恶性骨肿瘤手术切除后血管化骨移植与非血管化骨移植重建效果的系统性回顾和荟萃分析》(A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstruction with Vascularised Bone Graft vs Non-Vascularised Bone Graft after Surgical Resection of Primary Malignant and Non-Malignant Bone Tumors)。
研究目的:血管化骨移植(VBG)和非血管化骨移植(NVBG)是骨肿瘤治疗中广泛采用的重要生物重建程序。本研究的主要目的是对与使用血管化骨移植和非血管化骨移植相关的切除术后结果进行比较分析:利用PubMed/Medline、谷歌学术(Google Scholar)和Cochrane图书馆等著名在线数据库,对2013年至2023年期间的文献进行了全面系统的细致回顾。纳入标准仅限于通过血管化和非血管化骨移植技术进行骨肿瘤切除术后缺损修复效果的比较性文章。研究方法的质量采用牛津质量评分系统(Oxford Quality Scoring System)对随机试验进行评估,采用纽卡斯尔渥太华量表(Newcastle Ottawa Scale)对非随机比较研究进行评估。数据分析采用 SPSS 24 版本。主要结果指标包括肌肉骨骼肿瘤协会评分(MSTS)、骨结合持续时间和术后并发症发生率:该分析纳入了四篇临床文献,共有178名参与者(包括92名男性和86名女性),其中90名患者接受了VBG手术,88名患者接受了NVBG手术。主要研究终点包括MSTS评分和骨结合持续时间。虽然两组患者的并发症发生率在统计学上没有明显差异,但值得注意的是,VBG 的骨结合率明显高于 NVBG(PConclusions:我们的系统评估显示,VBG 有助于加速骨结合,从而加快患者的康复。值得注意的是,VBG 组和 NVBG 组的并发症发生率和功能结果相当。此外,VBG 和 NVBG 术后骨结合持续时间和功能评分之间的相关性值得进一步研究。关键词:重建技术、血管化骨移植、非血管化骨移植、骨肿瘤、切除术。
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Editorial Board accepts for publication articles, reports from congresses, fellowships, book reviews, reports concerning activities of orthopaedic and other relating specialised societies, reports on anniversaries of outstanding personalities in orthopaedics and announcements of congresses and symposia being prepared. Articles include original papers, case reports and current concepts reviews and recently also instructional lectures.
期刊最新文献
[Arthroscopic Subtalar Distraction Arthrodesis in Post-Traumatic Indications]. [Sagittal Profi le of the Spine in Patients after Lumbar Stabilisation Surgeries]. [Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the AMIS Method: Surgical Technique, Suitability of This Method for Obese Patients, Evaluation of the Study Population]. Management of Length Unstable Femur Fractures in Children by Flexible Intramedullary Nails: A Systematic Review. Reconstruction after Pelvic Bone Massive Resection: Evolution and Actuality of 3D-Printing Technology.
×
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