背景:本研究旨在通过荟萃分析综合评价单侧双孔内镜经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(UBE-TLIF)与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的近期临床疗效和安全性。
方法:基于计算机的PubMed搜索,Embase,WebofScience,Cochrane数据库,中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI),万方数据库,和中国科技期刊数据库(VIP)从每个数据库创建到2023年4月进行。然后根据严格的纳入和排除标准筛选检索的文献。使用ReviewManager软件5.4.1提取和分析了关键数据。根据数据属性,通过平均差(MD)或比值比(OR)以95%置信区间(CI)计算集合效应。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表用于评估研究质量。
结果:共有13项研究和949名患者符合本荟萃分析的纳入标准,UBE-LIF组中的445和MIS-TLIF组中的504。UBE-TLIF在术中血流方面优于MIS-TLIF,术后引流流量,住院时间,腰背痛的VAS评分和ODI评分,但手术时间长于MIS-TLIF组。两组总并发症发生率无显著差异,修改的Macnab分级标准,融合率,腿部疼痛的VAS评分,腰椎前凸,椎间盘高度。
结论:UBE-TLIF和MIS-TLIF均是治疗退行性腰椎疾病的有效手术方式。他们有相似的治疗结果,但UBE-TLIF具有术中出血量少的优点,术后住院时间短,更快的恢复。
背景:本研究已在INPLASY注册。COM(编号INPLASY202320087).
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases by meta-analysis.
METHODS: A computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) was conducted from the inception of the each database to April 2023. The searched literature was then screened according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The critical data were extracted and analyzed using
Review Manager software5.4.1. Pooled effects were calculated on the basis of data attributes by mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.
RESULTS: A total of 13 studies and 949 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, 445 in the UBE-LIF group and 504 in the MIS-TLIF group. UBE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood flow, postoperative drainage flow, duration of hospital stay, VAS score for low back pain and ODI score, but the operative time was longer than MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rate, modified Macnab grading criteria, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, lumbar lordosis, intervertebral disk height.
CONCLUSIONS: Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective surgical modalities for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. They have similar treatment outcomes, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery.
BACKGROUND: This study has been registered at INPLASY.COM (No. INPLASY202320087).