Dataset Information

Complete Versus Incomplete Surgical Resection in Intramedullary Ependymomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Systematic review.

Objective

To compare outcomes of complete versus incomplete resection in primary intramedullary spinal cord ependymoma.

Methods

A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases was conducted by 2 independent investigators. Random-effect meta-analysis and meta-regression with seven covariates were performed to evaluate the reason for the heterogeneity among studies. We also used individual patient data in the integrative analysis to compare complete and incomplete resection based on 4 outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), postoperative neurological improvement (PNI), and follow-up neurological improvement (FNI).

Results

A total of 23 studies were identified, including 407 cases. Significant heterogeneity among included studies was observed in risk estimates (I² for PFS, FNI, and PNI were 49.5%, 78.3%, and 87.2%, respectively). The mean follow-up time across cases was 48.6 ± 2.35 months. Cox proportional multivariable analysis revealed that the complete resection can prolong PFS (model, hazard ratio = 0.18, CI 0.05-0.54, P = .004,) and improve the FNI (binary logistic regression, adjusted odds ratio = 16.5, CI 1.6-171, P = .019). However, PNI and OS were similar in patients with incomplete resected spinal cord ependymoma compared with complete resection (binary logistic regression respectively and Cox multivariable analysis, P > .5).

Conclusion

The data presented in this study showed that OS was not significantly affected by the degree of surgery. However, complete resection of intramedullary ependymomas provides the optimal outcomes with longer PFS and better long-term neurological outcomes than incomplete resection.

SUBMITTER: Salari F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8165927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).Results24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).ConclusionVery low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021269997.