Neurospine · 2024
Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With a Comparison to Full-Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Sang Hyub, Seo Junghan, Jeong Dain, Hwang Jin Seop, Jang Jae-Won, Cho Yong Eun, Lee Dong-Geun, Park Choon Keun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) has been recently adopted for unilateral radiating arm pain due to cervical herniated intervertebral disc or foraminal stenosis. We systematically meta-analyzed clinical outcomes and complications of the UBE-PCF and compared them with those of full-endoscopic PCF (FE-PCF).
METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 29, 2024. Clinical outcomes and complications of the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were collected and analyzed using the fixed-effect or random-effects model. Clinical outcomes of the UBE-PCF were compared with minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following PCF to evaluate the efficacy of UBE-PCF.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the random-effects meta-analysis, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm were significantly decreased after the UBE-PCF (p<0.001). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were significantly higher than MCID (p<0.05). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p>0.05). Overall incidence of complications of the UBE-PCF was 6.2% (24 of 390). The most common complication was dura tear (2.1%, 8 of 390). The incidence in overall complications was not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p=0.813).
CONCLUSION: We found that the UBE-PCF significantly improved clinical outcomes. Regarding clinical outcomes and complications, the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were not significantly different. Therefore, the UBE-PCF would be an advantageous surgical option comparable to FE-PCF for unilateral radiating arm pain.
METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 29, 2024. Clinical outcomes and complications of the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were collected and analyzed using the fixed-effect or random-effects model. Clinical outcomes of the UBE-PCF were compared with minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following PCF to evaluate the efficacy of UBE-PCF.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the random-effects meta-analysis, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm were significantly decreased after the UBE-PCF (p<0.001). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were significantly higher than MCID (p<0.05). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p>0.05). Overall incidence of complications of the UBE-PCF was 6.2% (24 of 390). The most common complication was dura tear (2.1%, 8 of 390). The incidence in overall complications was not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p=0.813).
CONCLUSION: We found that the UBE-PCF significantly improved clinical outcomes. Regarding clinical outcomes and complications, the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were not significantly different. Therefore, the UBE-PCF would be an advantageous surgical option comparable to FE-PCF for unilateral radiating arm pain.