BACKGROUND Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.AIM To make a comparison ...BACKGROUND Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.AIM To make a comparison between UPS and BPS fixation as to how they work efficaciously and safely in patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases.METHODS We have searched a lot in the databases through 2020 with index terms such as“unilateral pedicle screw fixation”and“bilateral pedicle screw fixation.”Only randomized controlled trials and some prospective cohort studies could be found,yielding 15 studies.The intervention was unilateral pedicle screw fixation;Primarily We’ve got outcomes of complications and fusion rates.Secondarily,we’ve achieved outcomes regarding total blood loss,operative time,as well as length of stay.Softwares were installed and utilized for subgroup analysis,analyzing forest plots,sensitivity,heterogeneity,forest plots,publication bias,and risk of bias.RESULTS Fifteen previous cases of study including 992 participants have been involved in our meta-analysis.UPS had slightly lower effects on fusion rate[relative risk(RR)=0.949,95%CI:0.910 to 0.990,P=0.015],which contributed mostly to this metaanalysis,and similar complication rates(RR=1.140,95%CI:0.792 to 1.640,P=0.481),Δvisual analog scale[standard mean difference(SMD)=0.178,95%CI:-0.021 to 0.378,P=0.080],andΔOswestry disability index(SMD=-0.254,95%CI:-0.820 to 0.329,P=0.402).In contrast,an obvious difference has been observed inΔJapanese Orthopedic Association(JOA)score(SMD=0.305,95%CI:0.046 to 0.563,P=0.021),total blood loss(SMD=-1.586,95%CI:-2.182 to-0.990,P=0.000),operation time(SMD=-2.831,95%CI:-3.753 to-1.909,P=0.000),and length of hospital stay(SMD=-0.614,95%CI:-1.050 to-0.179,P=0.006).CONCLUSION Bilateral fixation is more effective than unilateral fixation regarding fusion rate after lumbar interbody fusion.However,JOA,operation time,total blood loss,as well as length of stay were improved for unilateral fixation.展开更多
目的:探讨对于腰椎管狭窄症且行单节段减压融合的患者,机器人辅助下的皮质骨螺钉(robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw,RCBTS)固定与机器人辅助下的椎弓根螺钉(robot-assisted pedicle screw,RPS)固定的疗效差异。方法:本研...目的:探讨对于腰椎管狭窄症且行单节段减压融合的患者,机器人辅助下的皮质骨螺钉(robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw,RCBTS)固定与机器人辅助下的椎弓根螺钉(robot-assisted pedicle screw,RPS)固定的疗效差异。方法:本研究为回顾性队列研究,回顾了2020年6月~2022年月6月于首都医科大学附属北京世纪坛医院行单节段减压融合且行机器人辅助下置钉的腰椎管狭窄症患者,共纳入99例,其中男性59例,女性40例,平均年龄67.07±4.65岁;应用皮质骨螺钉固定者41例(RCBTS组),应用椎弓根螺钉固定者58例(RPS组)。比较两种不同术式的切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后的24h引流量、术后住院天数;比较术后3d、3个月、6个月的日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分和腰痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS),并对JOA评分和VAS评分变化进行了固定效应检验;通过审查术后影像学资料,根据Gertzbein-Robbins方法对螺钉位置进行分级,计算两种术式的置钉准确率;比较两种术式围术期以及术后3个月的并发症发生情况。结果:两组患者基线数据无统计学差异(P>0.05)。RCBTS组患者的手术时长(134.39±22.23min vs 152.93±19.10min,P<0.001)、切口长度(64.93±3.71mm vs 78.84±3.82mm,P<0.001)、术中出血(155.61±37.15mL vs 172.41±43.22mL,P=0.001)、术后24h引流量(83.66±21.54mL vs 101.21±29.80mL,P=0.002)以及术后住院天数(4.90±1.26d vs 6.26±1.66d,P<0.001)均显著小于RPS组患者。两组患者的JOA评分和VAS评分变化在各时间点无显著性差异(P>0.05)。固定效应检验结果表明时间是JOA和VAS评分变化的固定效应(P<0.001)。两组的各级别置钉率(A级:152/164 vs 211/232,P=0.538;B级:9/164 vs 15/232,P=0.688;C级:3/164 vs 6/232,P=0.619)、临床可接受率(161/164 vs 226/232,P=0.619)、置钉不良率(3/164 vs 6/232,P=0.619)以及术后并发症(仅RCBTS组一例患者出现伤口延迟愈合)的发生情况均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:与RPS相比,接受RCBTS的患者在手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后引流量以及术后住院时长方面均具有显著优势;在术后功能恢复和腰痛改善间两组没有显著差异。展开更多
基金Supported by the Health Science and Technology of Tianjin Municipality,No.RC20204Tianjin Institute of Orthopedics,No.2019TJGYSKY03the National Natural Science Foundation of China,No.818717771177226。
文摘BACKGROUND Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.AIM To make a comparison between UPS and BPS fixation as to how they work efficaciously and safely in patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases.METHODS We have searched a lot in the databases through 2020 with index terms such as“unilateral pedicle screw fixation”and“bilateral pedicle screw fixation.”Only randomized controlled trials and some prospective cohort studies could be found,yielding 15 studies.The intervention was unilateral pedicle screw fixation;Primarily We’ve got outcomes of complications and fusion rates.Secondarily,we’ve achieved outcomes regarding total blood loss,operative time,as well as length of stay.Softwares were installed and utilized for subgroup analysis,analyzing forest plots,sensitivity,heterogeneity,forest plots,publication bias,and risk of bias.RESULTS Fifteen previous cases of study including 992 participants have been involved in our meta-analysis.UPS had slightly lower effects on fusion rate[relative risk(RR)=0.949,95%CI:0.910 to 0.990,P=0.015],which contributed mostly to this metaanalysis,and similar complication rates(RR=1.140,95%CI:0.792 to 1.640,P=0.481),Δvisual analog scale[standard mean difference(SMD)=0.178,95%CI:-0.021 to 0.378,P=0.080],andΔOswestry disability index(SMD=-0.254,95%CI:-0.820 to 0.329,P=0.402).In contrast,an obvious difference has been observed inΔJapanese Orthopedic Association(JOA)score(SMD=0.305,95%CI:0.046 to 0.563,P=0.021),total blood loss(SMD=-1.586,95%CI:-2.182 to-0.990,P=0.000),operation time(SMD=-2.831,95%CI:-3.753 to-1.909,P=0.000),and length of hospital stay(SMD=-0.614,95%CI:-1.050 to-0.179,P=0.006).CONCLUSION Bilateral fixation is more effective than unilateral fixation regarding fusion rate after lumbar interbody fusion.However,JOA,operation time,total blood loss,as well as length of stay were improved for unilateral fixation.
文摘目的:探讨对于腰椎管狭窄症且行单节段减压融合的患者,机器人辅助下的皮质骨螺钉(robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw,RCBTS)固定与机器人辅助下的椎弓根螺钉(robot-assisted pedicle screw,RPS)固定的疗效差异。方法:本研究为回顾性队列研究,回顾了2020年6月~2022年月6月于首都医科大学附属北京世纪坛医院行单节段减压融合且行机器人辅助下置钉的腰椎管狭窄症患者,共纳入99例,其中男性59例,女性40例,平均年龄67.07±4.65岁;应用皮质骨螺钉固定者41例(RCBTS组),应用椎弓根螺钉固定者58例(RPS组)。比较两种不同术式的切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后的24h引流量、术后住院天数;比较术后3d、3个月、6个月的日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分和腰痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS),并对JOA评分和VAS评分变化进行了固定效应检验;通过审查术后影像学资料,根据Gertzbein-Robbins方法对螺钉位置进行分级,计算两种术式的置钉准确率;比较两种术式围术期以及术后3个月的并发症发生情况。结果:两组患者基线数据无统计学差异(P>0.05)。RCBTS组患者的手术时长(134.39±22.23min vs 152.93±19.10min,P<0.001)、切口长度(64.93±3.71mm vs 78.84±3.82mm,P<0.001)、术中出血(155.61±37.15mL vs 172.41±43.22mL,P=0.001)、术后24h引流量(83.66±21.54mL vs 101.21±29.80mL,P=0.002)以及术后住院天数(4.90±1.26d vs 6.26±1.66d,P<0.001)均显著小于RPS组患者。两组患者的JOA评分和VAS评分变化在各时间点无显著性差异(P>0.05)。固定效应检验结果表明时间是JOA和VAS评分变化的固定效应(P<0.001)。两组的各级别置钉率(A级:152/164 vs 211/232,P=0.538;B级:9/164 vs 15/232,P=0.688;C级:3/164 vs 6/232,P=0.619)、临床可接受率(161/164 vs 226/232,P=0.619)、置钉不良率(3/164 vs 6/232,P=0.619)以及术后并发症(仅RCBTS组一例患者出现伤口延迟愈合)的发生情况均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:与RPS相比,接受RCBTS的患者在手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后引流量以及术后住院时长方面均具有显著优势;在术后功能恢复和腰痛改善间两组没有显著差异。
