The Journal of international medical research · 2025
Minimally invasive lateral, posterior, and posterolateral sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Xu Kai, Li Ya-Ling, Xiao Song-Hua, Pan Yong-Wei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects of minimally invasive lateral, posterior, and posterolateral sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain through a meta-analysis.
METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were comprehensively searched for studies up to 31 August 2024. Relevant studies using lateral, posterior, and posterolateral approaches were identified. Pooled outcomes and publication bias were assessed. The study was registered with PROSPERO (registration No. CRD42023451047).
RESULTS: A total of 48 studies were included: 32 focused on the lateral approach, 10 on the posterior approach, four on the posterolateral approach, and two compared the lateral and posterolateral approaches. The pooled effect analysis showed statistically significant improvements in the visual analog scale (VAS) scores for all three approaches at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Although no between-approach comparisons were conducted, the pooled improvements in VAS scores at 6 and 12 months postoperatively were numerically similar across all three approaches, as were the pooled fusion rates. The pooled complication rate for the lateral approach was 9.2%, numerically higher than 1% for the posterior approach. The pooled revision rate for the lateral approach was 2.4%, also numerically higher than 0.6% for the posterior approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Although pain relief and fusion rates were similar across all approaches, the lateral approach might be associated with a higher risk of total complications and revision surgery.
METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were comprehensively searched for studies up to 31 August 2024. Relevant studies using lateral, posterior, and posterolateral approaches were identified. Pooled outcomes and publication bias were assessed. The study was registered with PROSPERO (registration No. CRD42023451047).
RESULTS: A total of 48 studies were included: 32 focused on the lateral approach, 10 on the posterior approach, four on the posterolateral approach, and two compared the lateral and posterolateral approaches. The pooled effect analysis showed statistically significant improvements in the visual analog scale (VAS) scores for all three approaches at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Although no between-approach comparisons were conducted, the pooled improvements in VAS scores at 6 and 12 months postoperatively were numerically similar across all three approaches, as were the pooled fusion rates. The pooled complication rate for the lateral approach was 9.2%, numerically higher than 1% for the posterior approach. The pooled revision rate for the lateral approach was 2.4%, also numerically higher than 0.6% for the posterior approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Although pain relief and fusion rates were similar across all approaches, the lateral approach might be associated with a higher risk of total complications and revision surgery.