Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2008
Timing of surgery in cauda equina syndrome with urinary retention: meta-analysis of observational studies.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
DeLong W Bradford, Polissar Nayak, Neradilek Blazej
Аннотация
OBJECT: The authors performed exploratory meta-analyses of observational cohort studies, evidence level III, examining whether earlier surgery makes a difference in outcome in terms of urinary function once cauda equina syndrome (CES) from a herniated lumbar disc has progressed to urinary retention (CESR).
METHODS: Literature search identified 27 studies of CESR patients with clear definition of surgical timing. Relative risk (RR) could not be calculated in 11 studies, leaving 16 for meta-analysis. Urinary retention related to surgical timing at 5 breakpoints: 12, 24, 36, 48, or 72 hours. Urinary outcome was classified as Normal, Fair, or Poor. Meta-analysis was performed for "Event = Fair/Poor" or "Event = Poor." Eight studies allowed separation into CESR and incomplete CES (CESI), and 5 of these had enough data for meta-analysis to compare CESR and CESI. A random effects meta-analysis model was used because of heterogeneity across the studies. A best-evidence synthesis was performed for the 4 largest studies that had 24- and 48-hour breakpoints.
RESULTS: For "Event = Fair/Poor," meta-analyses using the 5 breakpoints predicted a more likely Fair/Poor outcome for later surgery (RR range 1.77-2.19). The RR for later timing of surgery was statistically significant for 24-and 72-hour breakpoints and was elevated but not statistically significant for the other 3. For "Event = Poor," the RR range was 1.09-5.82, statistically significant for the 36 hour breakpoint only. Meta-analysis comparing CESR patients with CESI patients predicted a Fair/Poor result for CESR (RR 2.58, 95% confidence interval 0.59-11.31). The best-evidence synthesis did not disclose reasons for differences in the results of the 4 studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports early surgery for CES and indicates that CESR and CESI cases should not be analyzed together.
METHODS: Literature search identified 27 studies of CESR patients with clear definition of surgical timing. Relative risk (RR) could not be calculated in 11 studies, leaving 16 for meta-analysis. Urinary retention related to surgical timing at 5 breakpoints: 12, 24, 36, 48, or 72 hours. Urinary outcome was classified as Normal, Fair, or Poor. Meta-analysis was performed for "Event = Fair/Poor" or "Event = Poor." Eight studies allowed separation into CESR and incomplete CES (CESI), and 5 of these had enough data for meta-analysis to compare CESR and CESI. A random effects meta-analysis model was used because of heterogeneity across the studies. A best-evidence synthesis was performed for the 4 largest studies that had 24- and 48-hour breakpoints.
RESULTS: For "Event = Fair/Poor," meta-analyses using the 5 breakpoints predicted a more likely Fair/Poor outcome for later surgery (RR range 1.77-2.19). The RR for later timing of surgery was statistically significant for 24-and 72-hour breakpoints and was elevated but not statistically significant for the other 3. For "Event = Poor," the RR range was 1.09-5.82, statistically significant for the 36 hour breakpoint only. Meta-analysis comparing CESR patients with CESI patients predicted a Fair/Poor result for CESR (RR 2.58, 95% confidence interval 0.59-11.31). The best-evidence synthesis did not disclose reasons for differences in the results of the 4 studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports early surgery for CES and indicates that CESR and CESI cases should not be analyzed together.