首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Cervical Disc Diseases: A Meta-analysis of Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trials
【24h】

Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Cervical Disc Diseases: A Meta-analysis of Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trials

机译:布莱恩颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路椎间盘切除术和融合术治疗颈椎间盘疾病:一项前瞻性,随机对照试验的荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Study Design.A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Objective.The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty (BCDA) as compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treatment of cervical disc diseases (CDDs).Summary of Background Data.Previous meta-analyses focused on the comparison of effectiveness and safety between ACDF and CDA, which consisted of various types of disc prostheses. No meta-analysis has been conducted up to present to compare ACDF with a specialized type of artificial cervical disc.Methods.We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails for prospective RCTs that compared BCDA with ACDF. The retrieved results were last updated on October 1, 2015, without language restrictions. We classified the trials into subgroups by short-term and midterm follow-up.Results.Eight relevant RCTs involving 1816 individuals were included in the meta-analysis. In overall-term follow-up, the clinical outcomes indicated that BCDA was superior to ACDF considering lower NDI scores (P=0.0009), greater range of motion at the index level (P=0.02), and fewer adverse events (P=0.004), but inferior to ACDF considering operation time (P<0.00001). There was no significant difference between two groups regarding blood loss (P=0.43), length of hospital stay (P=0.12), and secondary surgical procedures (P=0.20).Conclusion.BCDA presented better NDI improvement, greater range of motion at the index level, and fewer adverse events. However, the benefits of BCDA considering blood loss, length of hospital stay, and secondary surgical procedures are still incapable to be proved. More well design studies with longer term follow-up are needed to provide a better evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of the two procedures.Level of Evidence: 1
机译:研究设计。一项随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析。目的。本研究的目的是评估Bryan颈椎间盘置换术(BCDA)与前路颈椎间盘摘除融合术(ACDF)相比的有效性和安全性背景资料的总结。以前的荟萃分析着重比较ACDF和CDA的有效性和安全性,ACDF和CDA由各种类型的椎间盘假体组成。迄今为止,还没有进行荟萃分析以将ACDF与专用类型的人工颈椎间盘进行比较。方法。我们全面搜索了PubMed,EMBASE和Cochrane受控步道中央登记册,以比较将BCDA与ACDF进行比较的前瞻性RCT。检索到的结果最近一次更新是在2015年10月1日,没有语言限制。我们根据短期和中期随访将试验分为亚组。结果。荟萃分析包括8项涉及1816人的相关RCT。在全程随访中,临床结果表明,考虑到较低的NDI评分(P = 0.0009),指数水平的活动范围较大(P = 0.02)和较少的不良事件(P = 0.004),BCDA优于ACDF。 ),但考虑到操作时间,其效果不及ACDF(P <0.00001)。两组之间在失血量(P = 0.43),住院时间(P = 0.12)和第二次手术操作(P = 0.20)方面无显着差异。结论.BCDA表现出更好的NDI改善,运动范围更大指标水平,不良事件更少。但是,BCDA考虑到失血量,住院时间和二次手术的益处仍然无法得到证实。需要进行更多的设计研究并进行长期随访,以更好地评估这两种程序的有效性和安全性。证据级别:1

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号