早期脊髓减压与延迟脊髓减压对创伤性脊髓损伤后神经功能恢复的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

{"title":"早期脊髓减压与延迟脊髓减压对创伤性脊髓损伤后神经功能恢复的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.recot.2024.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare early (&lt;24<!--> <!-->h) versus late (&gt;24<!--> <!-->h) spinal cord decompression on neurological recovery in patients with acute spinal cord injury.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA protocol to identify studies published up to December 2022.</p><p>Prospective cohort studies and controlled trials comparing early versus delayed decompression on neurological recovery were included. Variables included number of patients, level of injury, treatment time, ASIA grade, neurological recovery, use of corticosteroids, and complications. For the meta-analysis, the “forest plot” graph was developed. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I22 and Rob223 tools.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Six of the seven studies selected for our review were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1188 patients (592 patients in the early decompression group and 596 in the delayed decompression group), the mean follow-up was 8 months, in 5 studies used methylprednisolone, the most reported complications were thromboembolic cardiopulmonary events.</p><p>Five studies showed significant differences in favour of early decompression (risk difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.14, heterogeneity 46%). The benefit was greatest in cervical and incomplete injuries.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There is scientific evidence to recommend early decompression in the first 24<!--> <!-->h after traumatic spinal cord injury, as it improves final neurological recovery, and it should be recommended whenever the patient and hospital conditions allow it to be safely done.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39664,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","volume":"68 5","pages":"Pages T524-T536"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888441524001164/pdfft?md5=315395e0e38b25e5a891eaef40728517&pid=1-s2.0-S1888441524001164-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Translated article] Efficacy of early versus delayed spinal cord decompression in neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury: Systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.recot.2024.07.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare early (&lt;24<!--> <!-->h) versus late (&gt;24<!--> <!-->h) spinal cord decompression on neurological recovery in patients with acute spinal cord injury.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA protocol to identify studies published up to December 2022.</p><p>Prospective cohort studies and controlled trials comparing early versus delayed decompression on neurological recovery were included. Variables included number of patients, level of injury, treatment time, ASIA grade, neurological recovery, use of corticosteroids, and complications. For the meta-analysis, the “forest plot” graph was developed. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I22 and Rob223 tools.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Six of the seven studies selected for our review were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1188 patients (592 patients in the early decompression group and 596 in the delayed decompression group), the mean follow-up was 8 months, in 5 studies used methylprednisolone, the most reported complications were thromboembolic cardiopulmonary events.</p><p>Five studies showed significant differences in favour of early decompression (risk difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.14, heterogeneity 46%). The benefit was greatest in cervical and incomplete injuries.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There is scientific evidence to recommend early decompression in the first 24<!--> <!-->h after traumatic spinal cord injury, as it improves final neurological recovery, and it should be recommended whenever the patient and hospital conditions allow it to be safely done.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia\",\"volume\":\"68 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages T524-T536\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888441524001164/pdfft?md5=315395e0e38b25e5a891eaef40728517&pid=1-s2.0-S1888441524001164-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888441524001164\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888441524001164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计目的:比较早期(24 小时)脊髓减压术对急性脊髓损伤患者神经功能恢复的影响:比较早期(24 小时)脊髓减压对急性脊髓损伤患者神经功能恢复的影响:前瞻性:纳入比较早期减压与延迟减压对神经功能恢复影响的队列研究和对照试验。变量包括患者人数、损伤程度、治疗时间、ASIA分级、神经功能恢复情况、皮质类固醇的使用以及并发症。为了进行荟萃分析,绘制了 "森林图"。使用 ROBINS-I22 和 Rob223 工具评估了纳入研究的偏倚风险:荟萃分析纳入了我们所选的 7 项研究中的 6 项,共 1188 名患者(早期减压组 592 名,延迟减压组 596 名),平均随访时间为 8 个月,5 项研究使用了甲基强的松龙,报告最多的并发症是血栓栓塞性心肺事件。颈椎和不完全损伤的患者获益最大:有科学证据表明,建议在创伤性脊髓损伤后的 24 小时内进行早期减压,因为它能改善神经系统的最终恢复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
[Translated article] Efficacy of early versus delayed spinal cord decompression in neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

To compare early (<24 h) versus late (>24 h) spinal cord decompression on neurological recovery in patients with acute spinal cord injury.

Methods

A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA protocol to identify studies published up to December 2022.

Prospective cohort studies and controlled trials comparing early versus delayed decompression on neurological recovery were included. Variables included number of patients, level of injury, treatment time, ASIA grade, neurological recovery, use of corticosteroids, and complications. For the meta-analysis, the “forest plot” graph was developed. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I22 and Rob223 tools.

Results

Six of the seven studies selected for our review were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1188 patients (592 patients in the early decompression group and 596 in the delayed decompression group), the mean follow-up was 8 months, in 5 studies used methylprednisolone, the most reported complications were thromboembolic cardiopulmonary events.

Five studies showed significant differences in favour of early decompression (risk difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.14, heterogeneity 46%). The benefit was greatest in cervical and incomplete injuries.

Conclusion

There is scientific evidence to recommend early decompression in the first 24 h after traumatic spinal cord injury, as it improves final neurological recovery, and it should be recommended whenever the patient and hospital conditions allow it to be safely done.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
审稿时长
51 weeks
期刊介绍: Es una magnífica revista para acceder a los mejores artículos de investigación en la especialidad y los casos clínicos de mayor interés. Además, es la Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad, y está incluida en prestigiosos índices de referencia en medicina.
期刊最新文献
Digital Orthopaedic Surgery: Benefits and challenges of extended reality and spatial computing. Ramón y Cajal and the Cartilaginous Growth Plate. [Translated article] New times, identical objectives. Correspondence "Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in traumatology: Conversational answers to specific questions". Does plate fixation improve the Latarjet procedure for anterior glenohumeral instability?
×
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