首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Global Spine Journal >Open Versus Minimally Invasive Fixation Techniques for Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Meta-Analysis
【2h】

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Fixation Techniques for Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Meta-Analysis

机译:胸腰椎创伤的开放式与微创固定技术的荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Study Design Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies published in English. >Objective This study evaluated differences in outcome variables between percutaneous and open pedicle screws for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. >Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was performed. The variables of interest included postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, kyphosis angle, and vertebral body height, as well as intraoperative blood loss and operative time. The results were pooled by calculating the effect size based on the standardized difference in means. The studies were weighted by the inverse of the variance, which included both within- and between-study error. Confidence intervals were reported at 95%. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I 2. >Results After two-reviewer assessment, 38 studies were eliminated. Six studies were found to meet inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The combined effect size was found to be in favor of percutaneous fixation for blood loss and operative time (p < 0.05); however, there were no differences in vertebral body height (VBH), kyphosis angle, or VAS scores between open and percutaneous fixation. All of the studies demonstrated relative homogeneity, with I 2 < 25. >Conclusions Patients with thoracolumbar fractures can be effectively managed with percutaneous or open pedicle screw placement. There are no differences in VBH, kyphosis angle, or VAS between the two groups. Blood loss and operative time were decreased in the percutaneous group, which may represent a potential benefit, particularly in the polytraumatized patient. All variables in this study demonstrated near-perfect homogeneity, and the effect is likely close to the true effect.
机译:>研究设计系统的文献综述和对以英语发表的研究进行的荟萃分析。 >目的这项研究评估了经皮椎弓根螺钉和开放性椎弓根螺钉治疗胸腰椎骨折的结果变量之间的差异。 >方法对PubMed,Cochrane和Embase进行了系统评价。感兴趣的变量包括术后视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分,后凸畸形和椎体高度,以及术中失血量和手术时间。通过基于均值的标准化差异计算效果大小来合并结果。通过方差的倒数对研究进行加权,方差包括研究内和研究间误差。据报道置信区间为95%。使用Q统计量和I 2 评估异质性。 >结果经过两次审核的评估,我们删除了38项研究。发现六项研究符合纳入标准,并被纳入荟萃分析。发现综合效果大小有利于经皮固定以减少失血量和手术时间(p <0.05);但是,开放式和经皮固定之间的椎体高度(VBH),后凸角或VAS评分没有差异。所有研究均显示相对同质性,I 2 <25。>结论经皮或椎弓根螺钉置入可有效治疗胸腰椎骨折患者。两组之间的VBH,驼背角或VAS没有差异。经皮治疗组的失血量和手术时间减少了,这可能是潜在的益处,尤其是对多发伤的患者。这项研究中的所有变量均显示出近乎完美的同质性,其效果可能接近真实效果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号