European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
Comparison of combined anterior-posterior approach versus posterior-only approach in neuromuscular scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Shao Zhen-Xuan, Fang Xia, Lv Qing-Bo, Hu Zhi-Chao, Shao Shi-Yun, Hu Yuan-Bo, Wu Ai-Min, Wang Xiang-Yang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Neuromuscular scoliosis (NS) is a complicated spinal disorder, and it could be treated through posterior-only approach (POA) or combined anterior-posterior approach (APA), which one is better and how to choose the surgical tactic is still in controversy. So comparing POA with APA parameters in the treatment of NS is meaningful.
METHODS: Database of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library was systematically searched, and the studies, which focus on the comparisons of POA and APA in the treatment of NS, were included. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS: Seven retrospective studies with 602 patients were included in meta-analysis. In previous analysis, statistically significant differences were observed in the major parameters between APA and POA. However, the results of subgroup meta-analysis, which focused on the correction angle and loss angle to eliminate the influence of different preoperative angles, were tend to no difference between two groups, except loss angle of scoliosis (MD, 6.4; 95% CI - 0.19 to 13) and correction angle of pelvic obliquity (MD, - 3.44; 95% CI - 6.71 to - 0.17).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggested that POA was similar to APA in the correction of scoliosis in coronal and sagittal planes. However, APA had advantages in the correction of pelvic obliquity and decreasing the loss of angle between postoperation and follow-up in main scoliosis, whereas POA had advantages in operative time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complications.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Database of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library was systematically searched, and the studies, which focus on the comparisons of POA and APA in the treatment of NS, were included. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS: Seven retrospective studies with 602 patients were included in meta-analysis. In previous analysis, statistically significant differences were observed in the major parameters between APA and POA. However, the results of subgroup meta-analysis, which focused on the correction angle and loss angle to eliminate the influence of different preoperative angles, were tend to no difference between two groups, except loss angle of scoliosis (MD, 6.4; 95% CI - 0.19 to 13) and correction angle of pelvic obliquity (MD, - 3.44; 95% CI - 6.71 to - 0.17).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggested that POA was similar to APA in the correction of scoliosis in coronal and sagittal planes. However, APA had advantages in the correction of pelvic obliquity and decreasing the loss of angle between postoperation and follow-up in main scoliosis, whereas POA had advantages in operative time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complications.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.