Brain & spine · 2024
Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty: Systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Название 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.
Fang H, Cui M, Zhao K, Zhang Y, Zeng X, Yang C, Xie L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis that investigates the efficacy of different surgical methods for treating cervical disc herniation or cervical foraminal stenosis.
RESEARCH QUESTION: The research aimed to compare the efficacy of Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (MI-PCF) with anterior approaches, namely Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included a comprehensive review of eight articles that compared ACDF and MI-PCF, and four articles that compared CDA to MI-PCF.
RESULTS: The results indicated no significant difference in surgical duration, hospital stay, complication rates, and reoperation rates between MI-PCF and ACDF. However, when comparing CDA with MI-PCF, it was found that CDA had a higher complication rate, while MI-PCF had a higher reoperation rate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Despite these findings, the study recommends MI-PCF as the preferred surgical method for cervical radiculopathy, owing to the advancements in minimally invasive techniques. However, these findings are preliminary, and further research with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes is necessary to confirm these findings and to further explore the potential advantages and disadvantages of these surgical methods.
RESEARCH QUESTION: The research aimed to compare the efficacy of Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (MI-PCF) with anterior approaches, namely Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included a comprehensive review of eight articles that compared ACDF and MI-PCF, and four articles that compared CDA to MI-PCF.
RESULTS: The results indicated no significant difference in surgical duration, hospital stay, complication rates, and reoperation rates between MI-PCF and ACDF. However, when comparing CDA with MI-PCF, it was found that CDA had a higher complication rate, while MI-PCF had a higher reoperation rate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Despite these findings, the study recommends MI-PCF as the preferred surgical method for cervical radiculopathy, owing to the advancements in minimally invasive techniques. However, these findings are preliminary, and further research with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes is necessary to confirm these findings and to further explore the potential advantages and disadvantages of these surgical methods.