首页> 外文期刊>Global spine journal. >Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Stand-AloneInterbody Cage Versus a Conventional Cage-Plate Technique: A Systematic Review andMeta-Analysis
【24h】

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Stand-AloneInterbody Cage Versus a Conventional Cage-Plate Technique: A Systematic Review andMeta-Analysis

机译:颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和独立椎间融合器与传统融合器技术的比较:系统评价和Meta分析

获取原文
       

摘要

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: Compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a stand-alone interbody cage versus a conventional cage and anterior cervical plate technique. Methods: A systematic Medline search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews. Search terms included “anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,” “cage,” and “bone plates,” or variations thereof. Only studies involving a direct comparison of ACDF with a stand-alone cage versus a cage and plate were included. From the selected studies, we extracted data on patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical risk factors, and pre- and postoperative radiographic findings. A meta-analysis was performed on all outcome measures. The quality of each study was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients who underwent ACDF with a cage-only technique had significantly lower rates of postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease compared with patients who underwent ACDF with a cage-plate technique. However, patients who underwent ACDF with a cage-plate technique had better radiographic outcomes with significantly less subsidence and better restoration of cervical lordosis. There were no other significant differences in outcomes or postoperative complications. Conclusions: ACDF with a cage-only technique appears to have better clinical outcomes than the cage-plate technique, despite radiographic findings of increased rates of subsidence and less restoration of cervical lordosis. Future randomized controlled trials with longer term follow-up are needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.
机译:研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析。目的:比较独立式椎间融合器与传统的椎间融合器和颈椎前路钢板技术的前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF)的临床和影像学结果。方法:使用PubMed,EMBASE和Cochrane系统评价图书馆数据库进行系统的Medline搜索。搜索词包括“前颈椎间盘摘除术和融合术”,“笼子”和“骨板”或其变体。仅纳入了将ACDF与独立网箱以及网箱和平板直接比较的研究。从选定的研究中,我们提取了有关患者人口统计学,合并症,手术危险因素以及术前和术后影像学检查结果的数据。对所有结局指标进行荟萃分析。使用Downs and Black清单评估每个研究的质量。结果:19项研究符合纳入和排除标准。与仅采用笼板技术进行ACDF的患者相比,仅采用笼状技术进行ACDF的患者术后吞咽困难和相邻节段疾病的发生率显着降低。但是,采用笼板技术行ACDF的患者的影像学检查结果更好,下陷明显减少,颈椎前凸恢复更好。结果或术后并发症没有其他显着差异。结论:尽管影像学发现下沉率增加且颈椎前凸畸形恢复较少,但仅采用笼式技术的ACDF似乎比笼板技术具有更好的临床效果。需要进行长期随访的未来随机对照试验,以确认该荟萃分析的结果。

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