A Network Meta-Analysis on the Surgical Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Anterior, Posterior, and Combined.

IF 1.2 Q3 SURGERY Spine Surgery and Related Research Pub Date : 2023-05-27 DOI:10.22603/ssrr.2022-0196
David Eugenio Hinojosa-Gonzalez, Ricardo J Estrada-Mendizabal, Luis Carlos Bueno-Gutierrez, Andres Roblesgil-Medrano, Eduardo Tellez-Garcia, Cecilia Anabell Galindo-Garza, Juan Bernardo Villarreal-Espinosa, Jose Ramon Rodriguez-Barreda, Jose Miguel Ortiz-Perez, Jose A Figueroa-Sanchez
{"title":"A Network Meta-Analysis on the Surgical Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Anterior, Posterior, and Combined.","authors":"David Eugenio Hinojosa-Gonzalez,&nbsp;Ricardo J Estrada-Mendizabal,&nbsp;Luis Carlos Bueno-Gutierrez,&nbsp;Andres Roblesgil-Medrano,&nbsp;Eduardo Tellez-Garcia,&nbsp;Cecilia Anabell Galindo-Garza,&nbsp;Juan Bernardo Villarreal-Espinosa,&nbsp;Jose Ramon Rodriguez-Barreda,&nbsp;Jose Miguel Ortiz-Perez,&nbsp;Jose A Figueroa-Sanchez","doi":"10.22603/ssrr.2022-0196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Thoracolumbar burst fractures (BFs) are traumatic lesions instigated by compression forces. Canal compression and compromise may lead to neurological deficits. Optimal surgical management is yet to be fully defined since various approaches such as anterior, posterior, or combined exist. This study aims to determine the operative performance of these three treatment modalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed, identifying studies comparing anterior, posterior, and/or combined surgical approaches in patients with thoracolumbar BFs. To analyze available evidence, a Bayesian network meta-analysis framework was utilized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 16 studies were included. The shortest operative times and lowest operative blood losses were found for a posterior approach. The length of stay (LoS) was shorter with the posterior approach compared with the other two modalities. Return to work, postoperative kyphotic angle (PKA), and complications all favored the posterior approach. The visual analog scale score was similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that the posterior approach has significant advantages in terms of operative time, blood loss, LoS, PKA, return to work, and complication rates when compared to the other approaches. Treatment should remain an individualized process, and before choosing an approach, factors such as patient characteristics, surgeon experience, and hospital settings should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":22253,"journal":{"name":"Spine Surgery and Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/71/90/2432-261X-7-0211.PMC10257960.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Surgery and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2022-0196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Thoracolumbar burst fractures (BFs) are traumatic lesions instigated by compression forces. Canal compression and compromise may lead to neurological deficits. Optimal surgical management is yet to be fully defined since various approaches such as anterior, posterior, or combined exist. This study aims to determine the operative performance of these three treatment modalities.

Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed, identifying studies comparing anterior, posterior, and/or combined surgical approaches in patients with thoracolumbar BFs. To analyze available evidence, a Bayesian network meta-analysis framework was utilized.

Results: In this study, 16 studies were included. The shortest operative times and lowest operative blood losses were found for a posterior approach. The length of stay (LoS) was shorter with the posterior approach compared with the other two modalities. Return to work, postoperative kyphotic angle (PKA), and complications all favored the posterior approach. The visual analog scale score was similar between groups.

Conclusions: This study suggests that the posterior approach has significant advantages in terms of operative time, blood loss, LoS, PKA, return to work, and complication rates when compared to the other approaches. Treatment should remain an individualized process, and before choosing an approach, factors such as patient characteristics, surgeon experience, and hospital settings should be considered.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
胸腰椎爆裂性骨折手术治疗的网络荟萃分析:前路、后路和联合。
背景:胸腰椎爆裂性骨折(BFs)是由压迫力引起的外伤性损伤。椎管受压和受累可导致神经功能缺损。由于各种入路,如前路、后路或联合入路存在,最佳手术管理尚未完全确定。本研究旨在确定这三种治疗方式的手术效果。方法:根据PRISMA指南,进行了系统的回顾,确定了比较胸腰椎BFs患者的前路、后路和/或联合手术入路的研究。为了分析现有证据,采用了贝叶斯网络元分析框架。结果:本研究共纳入16项研究。后路手术时间最短,术中出血量最少。与其他两种手术方式相比,后路手术的住院时间(LoS)更短。恢复工作,术后后凸角(PKA)和并发症都倾向于后路入路。两组间视觉模拟量表评分相近。结论:本研究表明,与其他入路相比,后路入路在手术时间、出血量、LoS、PKA、恢复工作和并发症发生率方面具有显著优势。治疗应保持个体化过程,在选择方法之前,应考虑患者特征、外科医生经验和医院环境等因素。
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Letter to the Editor Concerning "Clinical Outcomes of Condoliase Injection Therapy for Lateral Lumbar Disc Herniation" by Kagami et al. Reply to "Letter to the Editor Concerning 'Clinical Outcomes of Condoliase Injection Therapy for Lateral Lumbar Disc Herniation' by Kagami et al." Animal Model for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Literature Review. Increase in Intraoperative Intraocular Pressure in the Prone Position. Indication and Limitation of Intradiscal Condoliase Injection for Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation: Literature Review and Meta-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