首页> 外文期刊>Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. >Cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
【24h】

Cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

机译:颈椎间盘置换术与融合治疗单水平症状性颈椎间盘疾病:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Methods: We identified eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed (April 2011), EMBASE (April 2011) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (April 2011). Data were collected and extracted by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.0. Results: Six RCTs involving 1,745 patients were included. The pooled analysis showed a higher prevalence of neurological and overall success [(P = 0.004, RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.10), (P = 0.0005, RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.06-1.22)], and a lower incidence of dysphagia and reoperation related to adjacent-segment degeneration [(P = 0.04, RR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.09-0.97), (P = 0.03, RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.23-0.91)] with CDA compared to ACDF. However, there was no statistical difference in neck disability index (P = 0.92, SMD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.27), neck and arm pain scores[(P = 0.33, SMD = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.37 to 0.13), (P = 0.54, SMD = 0.17, 95% CI = -0.36 to 0.70)], incidence of complications related to the implant or surgical procedure and reoperation related to primary surgery [(P = 0.32, RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.45-1.30), (P = 0.09, RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.20-1.12)]. Conclusion: Compared with ACDF, CDA carry a lower incidence of dysphagia complications and reoperation related to adjacent-segment degeneration, and a higher prevalence of neurological and overall success at 2 years postoperatively. As the poor quality of the included studies, it is still uncertain whether CDR is more effective and safer than ACDF treating single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Future large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to provide clear evidence.
机译:目的:评价颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)与前路颈椎椎间盘摘除术和融合术(ACDF)在单水平症状性颈椎间盘疾病中的安全性和有效性。方法:我们在PubMed(2011年4月),EMBASE(2011年4月)和Cochrane中央对照试验注册中心(2011年4月)中确定了合格的随机对照试验(RCT)。数据由两名审阅者分别收集和提取。评估纳入研究的方法学质量和临床相关性。使用RevMan 5.0进行数据分析。结果:包括6项RCT,涉及1745名患者。汇总分析显示神经病学和总体成功率较高[(P = 0.004,RR = 1.06,95%CI = 1.02-1.10),(P = 0.0005,RR = 1.14,95%CI = 1.06-1.22)],与相邻节段变性相关的吞咽困难和再次手术的发生率较低[[P = 0.04,RR = 0.30,95%CI = 0.09-0.97),(P = 0.03,RR = 0.46,95%CI = 0.23-0.91) CDA相比ACDF。但是,颈部残疾指数(P = 0.92,SMD = 0.01,95%CI = -0.25至0.27),颈部和手臂疼痛评分[[P = 0.33,SMD = -0.12,95%CI = -0.37至0.13),(P = 0.54,SMD = 0.17,95%CI = -0.36至0.70),与植入物或外科手术相关的并发症发生率以及与原发手术相关的再次手术[(P = 0.32,RR = 0.76,95%CI = 0.45-1.30),(P = 0.09,RR = 0.48,95%CI = 0.20-1.12)]。结论:与ACDF相比,CDA术后2年发生吞咽困难并发症和与邻近节段变性相关的再次手术的发生率较低,神经系统疾病的患病率和总体成功率较高。由于纳入研究的质量较差,因此尚不能确定CDR是否比ACDF更有效和更安全地治疗单级症状性颈椎间盘疾病。为了提供明确的证据,未来需要长期随访的大规模随机对照试验。

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