首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Orthopaedic Translation >Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis
【24h】

Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis

机译:这是腰椎狭窄的最有效的治疗方法:减压,融合或梭菌过程装置?贝叶斯网络元分析

获取原文
           

摘要

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy, complications, and reoperation rates among three major treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS): decompression, fusion, and interspinous process device (IPD), using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Materials and methodsDatabases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were used for the literature search. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) with three treatment methods were reviewed and included in the study. R software (version 3.6.0), Stata (version 14.0), and Review Manager (version 5.3) were used to perform data analysis.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 1254 patients were enrolled in the present study and each study met an acceptable quality according to our quality assessment described later. In direct comparison, IPD exhibited a higher incidence of reoperation than fusion (OR??=??2.93, CI: 1.07–8.02). In indirect comparison, the rank of VAS leg (from best to worst) was as follows: IPD (64%)??>??decompression (25%)??>??fusion (11%), and the rank of ODI (from best to worst) was: IPD (84%)??>??fusion (13%)??>??decompression (4%). IPD had the lowest incidence of complications; the rank of complications (from best to worst) was: IPD (60%)??>??decompression (27%)??>??fusion (14%). However, for the rank of reoperation, fusion showed the best results (from best to worst): fusion (79%)??>??decompression (20%)??>??IPD (1%). Consistency tests at global and local level showed satisfactory results and heterogeneity tests using loop text indicated a favorable stability.ConclusionThe present study preliminarily indicates that non-fusion methods including decompression and IPD are optimal choices for treating LSS, which achieves favorable clinical outcomes. IPD exhibits a low incidence of complications, but its high rate of reoperation should be treated with caution.The translational potential of this articleFor the treatment of LSS, several procedures including decompression, fusion, and IPD have been reported. However, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. To date, the golden standard treatment for LSS is still controversial. In this network meta-analysis, our results demonstrate that both decompression and IPD obtain satisfactory clinical effects for LSS. IPD is accompanied with a low incidence of complications, however, its high rate of reoperation should be acknowledged with discretion.
机译:ObjectiveTo使用贝叶斯网络Meta分析的腰椎脊柱狭窄(LSS):减压,融合和梭孔流程(IPD)进行比较临床疗效,并发症和重新进入率。使用贝叶斯网络元分析。 ,Cochrane中央寄存器的受控试验(中央)和科学网用于文献搜索。综述和包括三种治疗方法的随机对照试验(RCT),并包括在研究中。 R软件(版本3.6.0),STATA(版本14.0)和审查经理(版本5.3)用于执行数据分析。涉及1254名患者的10个RCT的总和参加本研究,每项研究都达到了可接受的质量根据我们稍后描述的质量评估。直接比较,IPD表现出比融合的重新进入的发病率更高(或?? = ?? 2.93,CI:1.07-8.02)。在间接比较中,VAS腿(从最糟糕的)等级如下:IPD(64%)???> ??融合(25%)???融合(11%),以及ODI的等级(从最好的最差)是:IPD(84%)??> ??融合(13%)??>解压缩(4%)。 IPD具有最低的并发症发生率;并发症的等级(从最糟糕的)是:IPD(60%)??> ??减压(27%)???融合(14%)。但是,对于重新进食等级,融合显示了最佳结果(从最佳到最差):融合(79%)???>减压(20%)??> ?? IPD(1%)。全球和地方一级的一致性测试显示了使用循环文本的令人满意的结果和异质性测试,表明了有利的稳定性。结论目前的研究预先表明包括减压和IPD的非融合方法是治疗LSS的最佳选择,这实现了有利的临床结果。 IPD表现出低的并发症发病率低,但其高速的再次速率应当谨慎对待。本文的待遇潜力,包括减压,融合和IPD的若干程序,包括减压,融合和IPD。但是,每个方法都有自己的优缺点。迄今为止,LSS的黄金标准治疗仍存在争议。在该网络中的荟萃分析中,我们的结果表明,减压和IPD都为LSS获得了令人满意的临床效果。 IPD伴随着低的并发症发生率低,然而,应当自行决定承认其高度的重新进货率。

著录项

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