Comparative effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with anterior screw fixation versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1177/10225536241280191
Laveeza Fatima, Sameer S Tebha, Rabeya Farid, Aemen Kamran, Sravan Kr Edamakanti, Mohammad F Farrukh
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with anterior screw fixation versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Laveeza Fatima, Sameer S Tebha, Rabeya Farid, Aemen Kamran, Sravan Kr Edamakanti, Mohammad F Farrukh","doi":"10.1177/10225536241280191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Lumbar degenerative diseases impose a substantial health burden, prompting the exploration of advanced surgical approaches such as Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of OLIF with anterior screw fixation (OLIF-AF) against OLIF with posterior pedicle fixation (OLIF-PF) in addressing these conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search across multiple databases identified five studies meeting inclusion criteria, incorporating a total of 271 patients. Comparative analysis encompasses primary and secondary outcomes related to fusion rates, intraoperative parameters, patient-reported measures, and radiographic assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary outcome analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in total fusion rates between OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF. However, secondary outcomes revealed distinct advantages in OLIF-AF, showcasing lower intraoperative blood loss and reduced operative times compared to OLIF-PF. Nonetheless, patient-reported outcomes, encompassing measures such as pain scores and functional assessments, as well as radiographic parameters, exhibited no significant variations between the two techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While OLIF-AF displayed favorable results in intraoperative parameters, such as reduced blood loss and shorter operative times, it did not significantly differ in patient-reported outcomes and radiographic assessments compared to OLIF-PF. Interpretation of findings must consider limitations in sample sizes and study heterogeneity. Future investigations with larger, more diverse cohorts and extended follow-ups are imperative to confirm these preliminary findings and comprehend the actual clinical impact of these OLIF techniques in managing lumbar degenerative diseas.</p>","PeriodicalId":16608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":"32 2","pages":"10225536241280191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536241280191","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Lumbar degenerative diseases impose a substantial health burden, prompting the exploration of advanced surgical approaches such as Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of OLIF with anterior screw fixation (OLIF-AF) against OLIF with posterior pedicle fixation (OLIF-PF) in addressing these conditions.

Methods: A systematic search across multiple databases identified five studies meeting inclusion criteria, incorporating a total of 271 patients. Comparative analysis encompasses primary and secondary outcomes related to fusion rates, intraoperative parameters, patient-reported measures, and radiographic assessments.

Results: Primary outcome analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in total fusion rates between OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF. However, secondary outcomes revealed distinct advantages in OLIF-AF, showcasing lower intraoperative blood loss and reduced operative times compared to OLIF-PF. Nonetheless, patient-reported outcomes, encompassing measures such as pain scores and functional assessments, as well as radiographic parameters, exhibited no significant variations between the two techniques.

Conclusion: While OLIF-AF displayed favorable results in intraoperative parameters, such as reduced blood loss and shorter operative times, it did not significantly differ in patient-reported outcomes and radiographic assessments compared to OLIF-PF. Interpretation of findings must consider limitations in sample sizes and study heterogeneity. Future investigations with larger, more diverse cohorts and extended follow-ups are imperative to confirm these preliminary findings and comprehend the actual clinical impact of these OLIF techniques in managing lumbar degenerative diseas.

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
治疗腰椎退行性疾病的前路螺钉固定斜腰椎椎间融合术与经皮椎弓根螺钉固定术的疗效比较:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
目的:腰椎退行性疾病造成了巨大的健康负担,促使人们探索斜行腰椎椎体间融合术(OLIF)等先进的手术方法。本荟萃分析旨在评估前路螺钉固定的 OLIF(OLIF-AF)与后路椎弓根固定的 OLIF(OLIF-PF)在治疗这些疾病方面的疗效比较:方法:通过对多个数据库进行系统检索,发现了五项符合纳入标准的研究,共纳入了 271 名患者。比较分析包括与融合率、术中参数、患者报告指标和放射学评估相关的主要和次要结果:结果:主要结果分析表明,OLIF-AF 和 OLIF-PF 的总融合率在统计学上没有显著差异。然而,次要结果显示,OLIF-AF 与 OLIF-PF 相比具有明显优势,术中失血量更低,手术时间更短。尽管如此,患者报告的结果(包括疼痛评分和功能评估等指标以及放射学参数)在两种技术之间并无明显差异:结论:虽然OLIF-AF在术中参数(如失血量减少和手术时间缩短)方面显示出良好的效果,但与OLIF-PF相比,它在患者报告的结果和放射学评估方面没有显著差异。对研究结果的解释必须考虑样本量的局限性和研究的异质性。为了证实这些初步研究结果,并理解这些OLIF技术在治疗腰椎退行性疾病方面的实际临床影响,今后必须进行更大规模、更多样化的队列研究,并延长随访时间。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery is an open access peer-reviewed journal publishing original reviews and research articles on all aspects of orthopaedic surgery. It is the official journal of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association. The journal welcomes and will publish materials of a diverse nature, from basic science research to clinical trials and surgical techniques. The journal encourages contributions from all parts of the world, but special emphasis is given to research of particular relevance to the Asia Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
Prognosis after one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dynamic evaluation of vertebral alveolar echinococcosis using MR T2 mapping. Anxiety and depression as risk factors for postoperative complications and pain in lumbar spine surgery: A national database study Imaging evaluation of extraarticular posterior loose bodies in varus ankle osteoarthritis Oblique sliding ulna osteotomy to treat paediatric neglected monteggia fracture dislocation.
×
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