首页> 外文期刊>BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders >A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis
【24h】

A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis

机译:后路腰椎椎间融合器与经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合器的比较:文献综述与荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Background We compared the perioperative results and complications associated with PLIF and TLIF, and collected evidence for choosing the better fusion method. Methods A literature survey of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases identified 7 comparative observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. Checklists by Cowley were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. A database including patient demographic information, perioperative results, and complications was established. The summary odds ratio and weighed mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated with a random-effects model. Results We found that PLIF had a higher complication rate (P Conclusions The evidence indicated that TLIF could reduce the complication rate and durotomy. Neither TLIP nor PLIF was found superior in terms of clinical satisfaction or radiographic fusion rate. PLIF might result in longer time in surgery.
机译:背景我们比较了PLIF和TLIF的围手术期结果和并发症,并收集了选择更好融合方法的证据。方法对MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库进行的文献调查确定了7项符合我们纳入标准的比较观察性研究。 Cowley的检查表用于评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。建立了包括患者人口统计信息,围手术期结果和并发症的数据库。使用随机效应模型计算汇总比值比和95%置信区间的加权平均差。结果我们发现PLIF的并发症发生率较高(P结论TLIF可以降低并发症的发生率和硬膜切开术,TLIP和PLIF的临床满意度或X线融合率均不优于TLIP。手术。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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