微创与开放脊柱融合术治疗腰椎滑脱。

Shahzad Waqas Munazzam, Vikramaditya Rai, Qazi Adam Asfandyar, Shandana Khan, Cara Mohammed
{"title":"微创与开放脊柱融合术治疗腰椎滑脱。","authors":"Shahzad Waqas Munazzam, Vikramaditya Rai, Qazi Adam Asfandyar, Shandana Khan, Cara Mohammed","doi":"10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In recent years, there has been a growing utilization of minimally invasive (MI) techniques, which provide the potential advantages of minimizing surgical stress, post-operative pain, and hospitalization duration. Nevertheless, the existing body of literature primarily comprises of studies conducted at a single medical site, which are of low quality and lack a comprehensive analysis of treatment techniques exclusively focused on spondylolisthesis. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) spinal fusion outcomes for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. OS spinal fusion is an interventional option for patients with spinal illness who have not had success with non-surgical treatments.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This systematic review of the literature regarding MI and OS spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis treatment was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Electronic literature search of Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases yielded 1078 articles. These articles were screened against established criteria for inclusion into this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight retrospective and four prospective articles with a total of 3354 patients were found. Reported spondylolisthesis grades were I and II only. Overall, MI was associated with lower operative time (mean difference [MD], -6.44 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -45.57-32.71; P = 0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -0.49 days; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.40; P = 0.000). There was no significant difference overall between MIS and OS in terms of functional or pain outcomes. Rates of complications were not significantly different between the MI group and the OS group, though overall 75 and 153 complications were observed in MI group and OS group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Available data indicate that MI spinal fusion is a secure and efficient method for managing Grade I and Grade II spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, whereas prospective trials establish a connection between MI and improved functional outcomes, it is necessary to conduct longer-term and randomized trials to confirm any correlation identified in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":16647,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"224-234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723757/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spinal Fusion Surgery for Spondylolisthesis Treatment.\",\"authors\":\"Shahzad Waqas Munazzam, Vikramaditya Rai, Qazi Adam Asfandyar, Shandana Khan, Cara Mohammed\",\"doi\":\"10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In recent years, there has been a growing utilization of minimally invasive (MI) techniques, which provide the potential advantages of minimizing surgical stress, post-operative pain, and hospitalization duration. Nevertheless, the existing body of literature primarily comprises of studies conducted at a single medical site, which are of low quality and lack a comprehensive analysis of treatment techniques exclusively focused on spondylolisthesis. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) spinal fusion outcomes for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. OS spinal fusion is an interventional option for patients with spinal illness who have not had success with non-surgical treatments.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This systematic review of the literature regarding MI and OS spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis treatment was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Electronic literature search of Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases yielded 1078 articles. These articles were screened against established criteria for inclusion into this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight retrospective and four prospective articles with a total of 3354 patients were found. Reported spondylolisthesis grades were I and II only. Overall, MI was associated with lower operative time (mean difference [MD], -6.44 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -45.57-32.71; P = 0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -0.49 days; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.40; P = 0.000). There was no significant difference overall between MIS and OS in terms of functional or pain outcomes. Rates of complications were not significantly different between the MI group and the OS group, though overall 75 and 153 complications were observed in MI group and OS group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Available data indicate that MI spinal fusion is a secure and efficient method for managing Grade I and Grade II spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, whereas prospective trials establish a connection between MI and improved functional outcomes, it is necessary to conduct longer-term and randomized trials to confirm any correlation identified in this study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"224-234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723757/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5184\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5184","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

背景:近年来,微创(MI)技术的应用越来越多,它提供了最小化手术压力、术后疼痛和住院时间的潜在优势。然而,现有的文献主要包括在单一医疗地点进行的研究,这些研究质量低,缺乏对脊椎滑脱治疗技术的全面分析。我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较微创手术(MIS)和开放手术(OS)脊柱融合术治疗脊柱滑脱的结果。对于非手术治疗未成功的脊柱疾病患者,OS脊柱融合术是一种介入性选择。材料和方法:本系统回顾了关于MI和OS脊柱融合术治疗脊柱滑脱的文献,采用系统回顾的首选报告项目和文章识别、筛选、资格和纳入的荟萃分析指南。对Medline/PubMed、Cochrane Library和b谷歌Scholar数据库进行电子文献检索,共检索到1078篇论文。这些文章经过筛选,符合纳入本研究的既定标准。结果:共发现8篇回顾性文献和4篇前瞻性文献,共3354例患者。报道的脊柱滑脱等级仅为I和II。总体而言,心肌梗死与较短的手术时间相关(平均差[MD], -6.44 min;95%置信区间[CI], -45.57-32.71;P = 0.0001),住院时间较短(MD, -0.49天;95% CI, -0.58 ~ -0.40;P = 0.000)。总体而言,MIS和OS在功能或疼痛结果方面没有显著差异。MI组和OS组的并发症发生率无显著差异,但MI组和OS组共观察到75例和153例并发症。结论:现有数据表明,MI脊柱融合术是一种安全有效的治疗I级和II级脊柱滑脱的方法。此外,虽然前瞻性试验建立了心肌梗死与功能改善之间的联系,但有必要进行长期随机试验来证实本研究中发现的任何相关性。
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
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spinal Fusion Surgery for Spondylolisthesis Treatment.

Background: In recent years, there has been a growing utilization of minimally invasive (MI) techniques, which provide the potential advantages of minimizing surgical stress, post-operative pain, and hospitalization duration. Nevertheless, the existing body of literature primarily comprises of studies conducted at a single medical site, which are of low quality and lack a comprehensive analysis of treatment techniques exclusively focused on spondylolisthesis. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) spinal fusion outcomes for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. OS spinal fusion is an interventional option for patients with spinal illness who have not had success with non-surgical treatments.

Materials and methods: This systematic review of the literature regarding MI and OS spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis treatment was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Electronic literature search of Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases yielded 1078 articles. These articles were screened against established criteria for inclusion into this study.

Results: A total of eight retrospective and four prospective articles with a total of 3354 patients were found. Reported spondylolisthesis grades were I and II only. Overall, MI was associated with lower operative time (mean difference [MD], -6.44 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -45.57-32.71; P = 0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -0.49 days; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.40; P = 0.000). There was no significant difference overall between MIS and OS in terms of functional or pain outcomes. Rates of complications were not significantly different between the MI group and the OS group, though overall 75 and 153 complications were observed in MI group and OS group.

Conclusion: Available data indicate that MI spinal fusion is a secure and efficient method for managing Grade I and Grade II spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, whereas prospective trials establish a connection between MI and improved functional outcomes, it is necessary to conduct longer-term and randomized trials to confirm any correlation identified in this study.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Rare Case of Localized Pigmented Villonodular Synovitis of the Wrist presenting as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Rare Case of Gas Gangrene after Upper Limb Fracture. Ochronotic Arthropathy of the Shoulder - A Rare Case Report. Re-arthroscopic Findings 18 Years After Osteochondral Autologous Transplantation for Cartilage Lesion in the Knee: A Case Report. A Rare Case of Staphylococcus Caprae Periprosthetic Hip Infection with Unusual Clinical Presentation.
×
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