Clinical spine surgery · 2026
Endoscopic Spine Surgery in the Management of Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Lobo Kaike, Tudella Gabriel Caruso Novaes, Natali Lucas Destefani, Kotecki Lucas Bussiki Corrêa da Costa, Punukollu Anuraag, Fonseca Dos Santos Rafael Torres, Kalawatia Mihit, Dias Rodolfo Gomes
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to systematically assess clinical and surgical outcomes of endoscopic spine surgery for cauda equina syndrome (CES).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative for CES treatment, yet its efficacy and safety remain uncertain.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Continuous outcomes were analyzed as pooled means with 95% CIs, while dichotomous outcomes were pooled using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models in R software (version 4.5.1).
RESULTS: Seven studies (n=107) were included. The mean operative time was 55.6 minutes (95% CI: 42.0-73.5), with an estimated blood loss of 11.9 mL (95% CI: 1.2-118) and a hospital stay of 2.33 days (95% CI: 0.86-6.35). The overall complication rate was 7% (95% CI: 1.3-29.8) and the reoperation rate 4.5% (95% CI: 0.7-24.3). Postoperative outcomes demonstrated pooled mean reductions of -5.7 points in visual analog scale (VAS) Back (95% CI: -8.5 to -2.8), -7.7 points in VAS Leg (95% CI: -9.5 to -5.9), and a -57.7 percentage-point decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI: -74.0 to -41.4). Neurological recovery was also favorable, with pooled recovery rates of 78.3% for motor function (95% CI: 53.6-91.8), 67% for saddle anesthesia (95% CI: 34-89), and 97.8% for bladder/bowel function (95% CI: 15.8-100).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic spine surgery provides a safe and effective minimally invasive option for CES. Future prospective studies are warranted to further validate its long-term efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to systematically assess clinical and surgical outcomes of endoscopic spine surgery for cauda equina syndrome (CES).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative for CES treatment, yet its efficacy and safety remain uncertain.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Continuous outcomes were analyzed as pooled means with 95% CIs, while dichotomous outcomes were pooled using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models in R software (version 4.5.1).
RESULTS: Seven studies (n=107) were included. The mean operative time was 55.6 minutes (95% CI: 42.0-73.5), with an estimated blood loss of 11.9 mL (95% CI: 1.2-118) and a hospital stay of 2.33 days (95% CI: 0.86-6.35). The overall complication rate was 7% (95% CI: 1.3-29.8) and the reoperation rate 4.5% (95% CI: 0.7-24.3). Postoperative outcomes demonstrated pooled mean reductions of -5.7 points in visual analog scale (VAS) Back (95% CI: -8.5 to -2.8), -7.7 points in VAS Leg (95% CI: -9.5 to -5.9), and a -57.7 percentage-point decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI: -74.0 to -41.4). Neurological recovery was also favorable, with pooled recovery rates of 78.3% for motor function (95% CI: 53.6-91.8), 67% for saddle anesthesia (95% CI: 34-89), and 97.8% for bladder/bowel function (95% CI: 15.8-100).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic spine surgery provides a safe and effective minimally invasive option for CES. Future prospective studies are warranted to further validate its long-term efficacy and safety.