经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术与后路腰椎椎体间融合术的放射学和临床结果:系统回顾

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Turkish neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.42926-22.2
Payman Vahedi, Marjan Gholghasemi, George Rymarczuk
{"title":"经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术与后路腰椎椎体间融合术的放射学和临床结果:系统回顾","authors":"Payman Vahedi, Marjan Gholghasemi, George Rymarczuk","doi":"10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.42926-22.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare 1 and 2 level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques in an effort to elucidate trends in overall radiological and clinical outcome, rate of complications, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, pseudoarthrosis or failure rate, and estimated blood loss.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Online databases including Scopus, Science Direct, Clinical key, Ovid, Embase, and PubMed/ Medline were queried over the period encompassing January 2000 to August 2021 for suitable studies. Search criteria consisted of (\"TLIF\" AND \"PLIF\") OR (\"Transforaminal Lumbar interbody fusion\" AND \"Posterior lumbar interbody fusion\") AND (\"comparative\" OR \"comparison\") OR (\"fusion\" OR \"outcome\" Or \"reoperation\" OR \"Failure rate\" OR \"Failure\" OR \"Complication rate\" OR \"Complication\").</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen eligible studies were selected. Neurological deficits were considerably higher in the PLIF group (24%vs.10%). The mean operation time and estimated blood loss for PLIF and TLIF were 178.5 min and 515 ml; and 160 min and 405 ml, respectively. No significant difference was found regarding the fusion rate. The reoperation rate was greater in PLIF (2%) than TLIF (0%). No clear difference was found regarding the length of stay (LOS) and surgical site infection (SSI).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The superiority of TLIF over PLIF may be evidenced by the lower rate of neurologic deficit, surgical technical aspects, less blood loss and shorter operation time. Cage migration, screw displacement, infection, and pseudoarthrosis may be influenced by a variety of factors, including the facility, the surgeon, and the instrumentation/ graft used, and do not appear to be different. Multicenter non-randomized prospective trials are recommended to determine the possible superiority of one method over the other.</p>","PeriodicalId":23395,"journal":{"name":"Turkish neurosurgery","volume":"1 1","pages":"175-183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of Transforaminal vs. Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Payman Vahedi, Marjan Gholghasemi, George Rymarczuk\",\"doi\":\"10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.42926-22.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare 1 and 2 level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques in an effort to elucidate trends in overall radiological and clinical outcome, rate of complications, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, pseudoarthrosis or failure rate, and estimated blood loss.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Online databases including Scopus, Science Direct, Clinical key, Ovid, Embase, and PubMed/ Medline were queried over the period encompassing January 2000 to August 2021 for suitable studies. Search criteria consisted of (\\\"TLIF\\\" AND \\\"PLIF\\\") OR (\\\"Transforaminal Lumbar interbody fusion\\\" AND \\\"Posterior lumbar interbody fusion\\\") AND (\\\"comparative\\\" OR \\\"comparison\\\") OR (\\\"fusion\\\" OR \\\"outcome\\\" Or \\\"reoperation\\\" OR \\\"Failure rate\\\" OR \\\"Failure\\\" OR \\\"Complication rate\\\" OR \\\"Complication\\\").</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen eligible studies were selected. Neurological deficits were considerably higher in the PLIF group (24%vs.10%). The mean operation time and estimated blood loss for PLIF and TLIF were 178.5 min and 515 ml; and 160 min and 405 ml, respectively. No significant difference was found regarding the fusion rate. The reoperation rate was greater in PLIF (2%) than TLIF (0%). No clear difference was found regarding the length of stay (LOS) and surgical site infection (SSI).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The superiority of TLIF over PLIF may be evidenced by the lower rate of neurologic deficit, surgical technical aspects, less blood loss and shorter operation time. Cage migration, screw displacement, infection, and pseudoarthrosis may be influenced by a variety of factors, including the facility, the surgeon, and the instrumentation/ graft used, and do not appear to be different. Multicenter non-randomized prospective trials are recommended to determine the possible superiority of one method over the other.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"175-183\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.42926-22.2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.42926-22.2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较1级和2级后路腰椎椎体间融合术(PLIF)与经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)技术,以阐明总体放射学和临床结果、并发症发生率、手术时间、住院时间、再次手术率、假关节或失败率以及估计失血量的趋势:在线数据库包括 Scopus、Science Direct、Clinical key、Ovid、Embase 和 PubMed/Medline,搜索时间跨度为 2000 年 1 月至 2021 年 8 月,以寻找合适的研究。搜索标准包括("TLIF "和 "PLIF")或("经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术 "和 "后路腰椎椎体间融合术")和("比较 "或 "对比")或("融合 "或 "结果 "或 "再手术 "或 "失败率 "或 "失败 "或 "并发症率 "或 "并发症"):结果:共筛选出 14 项符合条件的研究。PLIF组的神经功能缺损率明显更高(24%对10%)。PLIF 和 TLIF 的平均手术时间和估计失血量分别为 178.5 分钟和 515 毫升,以及 160 分钟和 405 毫升。在融合率方面没有发现明显差异。PLIF 的再手术率(2%)高于 TLIF(0%)。在住院时间(LOS)和手术部位感染(SSI)方面没有发现明显差异:结论:TLIF的神经功能缺损率较低,手术技术方面,失血较少,手术时间较短,这些都证明了TLIF优于PLIF。固定架移位、螺钉移位、感染和假关节可能受到多种因素的影响,包括设施、外科医生和使用的器械/移植物,这些因素似乎并无不同。建议进行多中心非随机前瞻性试验,以确定一种方法是否优于另一种方法。
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
Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of Transforaminal vs. Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review.

Aim: To compare 1 and 2 level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques in an effort to elucidate trends in overall radiological and clinical outcome, rate of complications, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, pseudoarthrosis or failure rate, and estimated blood loss.

Material and methods: Online databases including Scopus, Science Direct, Clinical key, Ovid, Embase, and PubMed/ Medline were queried over the period encompassing January 2000 to August 2021 for suitable studies. Search criteria consisted of ("TLIF" AND "PLIF") OR ("Transforaminal Lumbar interbody fusion" AND "Posterior lumbar interbody fusion") AND ("comparative" OR "comparison") OR ("fusion" OR "outcome" Or "reoperation" OR "Failure rate" OR "Failure" OR "Complication rate" OR "Complication").

Results: Fourteen eligible studies were selected. Neurological deficits were considerably higher in the PLIF group (24%vs.10%). The mean operation time and estimated blood loss for PLIF and TLIF were 178.5 min and 515 ml; and 160 min and 405 ml, respectively. No significant difference was found regarding the fusion rate. The reoperation rate was greater in PLIF (2%) than TLIF (0%). No clear difference was found regarding the length of stay (LOS) and surgical site infection (SSI).

Conclusion: The superiority of TLIF over PLIF may be evidenced by the lower rate of neurologic deficit, surgical technical aspects, less blood loss and shorter operation time. Cage migration, screw displacement, infection, and pseudoarthrosis may be influenced by a variety of factors, including the facility, the surgeon, and the instrumentation/ graft used, and do not appear to be different. Multicenter non-randomized prospective trials are recommended to determine the possible superiority of one method over the other.

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
Turkish neurosurgery
Turkish neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
126
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Turkish Neurosurgery is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary, open access and totally free journal directed at an audience of neurosurgery physicians and scientists. The official language of the journal is English. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Turkish Neurosurgery will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) approval and have strictly observed an acceptable follow-up period. With the exception of reference presentation, Turkish Neurosurgery requires that all manuscripts be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
期刊最新文献
Changes in the Lumbosacral Angle after Spinal Cord Untethering in 23 Children with Tethered Cord Syndrome. Multiple Pathway-Dephosphorylated ASK-1 Confers Temozolomide-Resistance to Human Glioma Cells. A Nomogram Model for Predicting Prognosis of Patients with Medulloblastoma. Percutaneous Vertebroplasty with the Polymethyl Methacrylate - Gelatin Sponge Complex in the Treatment of Patients with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures Accompanied by Superior Endplate Injurie. Risk Factors for Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture: A Clinical Case Series and Systematic Review of the Literature.
×
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