{"title":"戈尔-哈姆斯(Goel-Harms)技术和后路С1-С2经关节螺钉固定术中植入物相关并发症和脊柱融合发生率的比较荟萃分析(按F. Magerl说法","authors":"A. Grin, A. Talypov, A. Kordonskiy, Z. Barbakadze","doi":"10.17650/1683-3295-2024-26-2-100-111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transarticular fixation (TAF) of C1–C2 using the F. Magerl method and the Goеl–Harms technique (GHT) are the two most popular ways of forming spondylodesis at the atlantoaxial level. Nevertheless, comparative studies with a high level of evidence have not been published at present.The aim of the study was to conduct a comparative meta‑analysis of the incidence of implant‑associated complications and fusion. The initial search in revealed more than 5,000 abstracts, after applying filters, 202 studies were selected, of which 16 works were included in this study. According to the results of the meta‑analysis, no significant differences were found between the methods of Goel–Harms and F. Magerl in the duration of surgery and intraoperative blood loss, as well as in the frequency of postoperative implant‑associated complications and spinal fusion of C1–C2 vertebrae.","PeriodicalId":197162,"journal":{"name":"Russian journal of neurosurgery","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative meta-analysis of implant-associated complications and spinal fusion incidence in Goel-Harms technique and posterior С1-С2 transarticular screw fixation per F. Magerl\",\"authors\":\"A. Grin, A. Talypov, A. Kordonskiy, Z. Barbakadze\",\"doi\":\"10.17650/1683-3295-2024-26-2-100-111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Transarticular fixation (TAF) of C1–C2 using the F. Magerl method and the Goеl–Harms technique (GHT) are the two most popular ways of forming spondylodesis at the atlantoaxial level. Nevertheless, comparative studies with a high level of evidence have not been published at present.The aim of the study was to conduct a comparative meta‑analysis of the incidence of implant‑associated complications and fusion. The initial search in revealed more than 5,000 abstracts, after applying filters, 202 studies were selected, of which 16 works were included in this study. According to the results of the meta‑analysis, no significant differences were found between the methods of Goel–Harms and F. Magerl in the duration of surgery and intraoperative blood loss, as well as in the frequency of postoperative implant‑associated complications and spinal fusion of C1–C2 vertebrae.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Russian journal of neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\" 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Russian journal of neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17650/1683-3295-2024-26-2-100-111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17650/1683-3295-2024-26-2-100-111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
使用 F. Magerl 法和 Goеl-Harms 技术(GHT)对 C1-C2 进行经关节固定(TAF),是在寰枢椎水平形成脊柱结节的两种最常用方法。本研究旨在对植入物相关并发症和融合的发生率进行比较荟萃分析。初步检索发现了 5000 多篇摘要,经过筛选后,选出了 202 篇研究,本研究纳入了其中的 16 篇。根据荟萃分析的结果,Goel-Harms 和 F. Magerl 两种方法在手术时间、术中失血量、术后植入物相关并发症发生率和 C1-C2 椎体脊柱融合方面均无明显差异。
Comparative meta-analysis of implant-associated complications and spinal fusion incidence in Goel-Harms technique and posterior С1-С2 transarticular screw fixation per F. Magerl
Transarticular fixation (TAF) of C1–C2 using the F. Magerl method and the Goеl–Harms technique (GHT) are the two most popular ways of forming spondylodesis at the atlantoaxial level. Nevertheless, comparative studies with a high level of evidence have not been published at present.The aim of the study was to conduct a comparative meta‑analysis of the incidence of implant‑associated complications and fusion. The initial search in revealed more than 5,000 abstracts, after applying filters, 202 studies were selected, of which 16 works were included in this study. According to the results of the meta‑analysis, no significant differences were found between the methods of Goel–Harms and F. Magerl in the duration of surgery and intraoperative blood loss, as well as in the frequency of postoperative implant‑associated complications and spinal fusion of C1–C2 vertebrae.