Expert review of medical devices · 2024
Is open anterior advantageous to posterior decompression and reconstruction in fresh A3 to C3/AO type thoracolumbar junction fractures? A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Korovessis P, Syrimpeis Vasileios, Korovesis Alkis
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Surgical outcomes of open anterior and open posterior approaches, for thoracolumbar A3 to C3/AO type fractures, are compared.
METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted from 1990 to 2024 related to anterior, posterior, and combined approaches. Inclusion criteria: Fresh traumatic T10 to L2 fractures, age ≥13 years, ≥10 cases, minimum follow-up 6 months. Exclusion criteria: Cadaveric studies, pathological fractures, reviews, thoracoscopy-assisted, mini-open lateral (MOLA) and minimal invasive anterior or posterior approaches. Coleman Methodology Scores (CMS) (modified for spinal trauma) indicated potential selection bias in the selected studies. PRISMA guidelines were adapted.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 847 participants were selected. The average CMS quality score was fair. The anterior approach, although it better decompresses the compromised spinal canal, it is also associated with increased surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The neurological outcome, the loss of correction and the reoperation rate, were similar to both approaches. This systematic review favors posterior approach.
CONCLUSIONS: The anterior approach is demanding and is associated with a higher rate of surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The limitations of the selected studies included inconsistence in the: 1) approaches selection, 2) classifications of the fracture types and the neurological status and 3) variety of instrumentations used.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42023484222.
METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted from 1990 to 2024 related to anterior, posterior, and combined approaches. Inclusion criteria: Fresh traumatic T10 to L2 fractures, age ≥13 years, ≥10 cases, minimum follow-up 6 months. Exclusion criteria: Cadaveric studies, pathological fractures, reviews, thoracoscopy-assisted, mini-open lateral (MOLA) and minimal invasive anterior or posterior approaches. Coleman Methodology Scores (CMS) (modified for spinal trauma) indicated potential selection bias in the selected studies. PRISMA guidelines were adapted.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 847 participants were selected. The average CMS quality score was fair. The anterior approach, although it better decompresses the compromised spinal canal, it is also associated with increased surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The neurological outcome, the loss of correction and the reoperation rate, were similar to both approaches. This systematic review favors posterior approach.
CONCLUSIONS: The anterior approach is demanding and is associated with a higher rate of surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The limitations of the selected studies included inconsistence in the: 1) approaches selection, 2) classifications of the fracture types and the neurological status and 3) variety of instrumentations used.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42023484222.