World neurosurgery · 2020
Minimum 2-Year Efficacy of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy: A Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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 Jietao, Li Yawei, Wang Bing, Lv Guohua, Li Lei, Dai Yuliang, Jiang Bin, Zheng Zhenzhong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation has gained popularity in recent years, as 2 dominant techniques, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) obtained comparable short-term clinical outcomes. However, midterm and long-term efficacy and reoperative rate are still debated.
METHODS: Electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Ovid, and EBSCO were searched. STATA 14.0 was used for statistical analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled to quantify the strength of the statistical differences.
RESULTS: Nine studies (468 patients in the PELD group and 516 patients in the MED group) with high methodologic quality met the selection criteria. No differences were found in leg pain visual analog scale score before surgery or at any follow-up time after surgery. PELD obtained better outcomes in low back pain visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index score, and excellent and good ratio after 24 months postoperatively (OR = -0.856, 95% CI -1.488 to -0.224, P = 0.008; OR = -0.425, 95% CI -0.724 to -0.127, P = 0.005; OR = 3.034; 95% CI 1.254 to 7.343; P = 0.014) compared with MED. No difference was found within 24 months postoperatively. No significant differences were found in complication, recurrence, and reoperation rates within and after 2 years postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both PELD and MED can offer relatively effective and safe treatment for low back pain and radiculopathy associated with a herniated disc. PELD could obtain better midterm and long-term clinical outcomes compared with MED.
METHODS: Electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Ovid, and EBSCO were searched. STATA 14.0 was used for statistical analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled to quantify the strength of the statistical differences.
RESULTS: Nine studies (468 patients in the PELD group and 516 patients in the MED group) with high methodologic quality met the selection criteria. No differences were found in leg pain visual analog scale score before surgery or at any follow-up time after surgery. PELD obtained better outcomes in low back pain visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index score, and excellent and good ratio after 24 months postoperatively (OR = -0.856, 95% CI -1.488 to -0.224, P = 0.008; OR = -0.425, 95% CI -0.724 to -0.127, P = 0.005; OR = 3.034; 95% CI 1.254 to 7.343; P = 0.014) compared with MED. No difference was found within 24 months postoperatively. No significant differences were found in complication, recurrence, and reoperation rates within and after 2 years postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both PELD and MED can offer relatively effective and safe treatment for low back pain and radiculopathy associated with a herniated disc. PELD could obtain better midterm and long-term clinical outcomes compared with MED.