Dataset Information

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Fixation Techniques for Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Study Design Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies published in English. Objective This study evaluated differences in outcome variables between percutaneous and open pedicle screws for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was performed. The variables of interest included postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, kyphosis angle, and vertebral body height, as well as intraoperative blood loss and operative time. The results were pooled by calculating the effect size based on the standardized difference in means. The studies were weighted by the inverse of the variance, which included both within- and between-study error. Confidence intervals were reported at 95%. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I (2). Results After two-reviewer assessment, 38 studies were eliminated. Six studies were found to meet inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The combined effect size was found to be in favor of percutaneous fixation for blood loss and operative time (p < 0.05); however, there were no differences in vertebral body height (VBH), kyphosis angle, or VAS scores between open and percutaneous fixation. All of the studies demonstrated relative homogeneity, with I (2) < 25. Conclusions Patients with thoracolumbar fractures can be effectively managed with percutaneous or open pedicle screw placement. There are no differences in VBH, kyphosis angle, or VAS between the two groups. Blood loss and operative time were decreased in the percutaneous group, which may represent a potential benefit, particularly in the polytraumatized patient. All variables in this study demonstrated near-perfect homogeneity, and the effect is likely close to the true effect.

SUBMITTER: McAnany SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4771513 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOpen reduction internal fixation (ORIF) has long been the conventional procedure for managing displaced patella fracture. This surgical approach has certain drawbacks, which might affect clinical outcomes and patient prognosis. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF) was proposed to overcome these disadvantages. Few in-depth investigations have been performed to determine the superiority of MIPF over ORIF. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of MIPF and ORIF for patella fractures.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from November 26 to December 17, 2020. Non-English publications and pediatric orthopedic articles were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.4, with mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the pain score, knee range of motion, and joint functionality. The secondary outcomes were the surgical time, complications, and implant removal rate.ResultsSix articles with a total of 304 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that patients with MIPF had a significantly reduced pain score (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI = - 1.77 to -0.82; p < 0.00001) and increased knee extension angles (MD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.25; p = 0.009) at 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, knee flexion angles (MD = 8.96, 95% CI = 5.81 to 12.1; p < 0.00001) and joint functionality (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.86; p = 0.001) had statistically improved at 2 years. However, no difference was observed between MIPF and ORIF with regard to the surgical time. The risk of complications (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18; p < 0.00001) and implant removal rate (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.57; p = 0.003) were significantly lower with MIPF than with ORIF.ConclusionsMIPF is more favorable than ORIF in terms of the pain score, knee range of motion, joint functionality, complications, and implant removal rate. Thus, it can be adopted as an alternative to ORIF.

Project description:BackgroundWidespread implementation of the minimally invasive technique in pancreatic surgery has proven to be challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatic surgery with open pancreatic surgery using data obtained from RCTs.MethodsA literature search was done using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Web of Science; all available RCTs comparing minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and open pancreatic surgery in adults requiring elective distal pancreatectomy or partial pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Outcomes were mortality rate, general and pancreatic surgery specific morbidity rate, and length of hospital stay.ResultsSix RCTs with 984 patients were included; 99.0 per cent (486) of minimally invasive procedures were performed laparoscopically and 1.0 per cent (five) robotically. In minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, length of hospital stay (-1.3 days, -2 to -0.5, P = 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (-137 ml, -182 to -92, P < 0.001) were reduced. In the subgroup analysis, reduction in length of hospital stay was only present for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (-2 days, -2.3 to -1.7, P < 0.001). A minimally invasive approach showed reductions in surgical site infections (OR 0.4, 0.1 to 0.96, P = 0.040) and intraoperative blood loss (-131 ml, -173 to -89, P < 0.001) with a 75 min longer duration of surgery (42 to 108 min, P < 0.001) only in partial pancreatoduodenectomy. No significant differences were found with regards to mortality rate and postoperative complications.ConclusionThis meta-analysis presents level 1 evidence of reduced length of hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery compared with open pancreatic surgery. Morbidity rate and mortality rate were comparable, but longer duration of surgery in minimally invasive partial pancreatoduodenectomy hints that this technique in partial pancreatoduodenectomy is technically more challenging than in distal pancreatectomy.

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Project description:BackgroundThoracolumbar fractures are most frequent along the spine, and surgical treatment is indicated for unstable fractures. Percutaneous minimally invasive surgery was introduced to reduce the pain associated with the open posterior approach and reduce the morbidity of the procedure by avoiding damage and dissection of the paravertebral muscles. The goal of this study is to compare the surgical treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar spine treated by the conventional open approach and the percutaneous minimally invasive approach using similar types of pedicle spine fixation systems.Methods/designsThis study is designed as a multi-center, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18-65 years who are scheduled to undergo surgical posterior fixation. Treatment by the conventional open approach or percutaneous minimally invasive approach will be randomly assigned. The primary outcome measure is postoperative pain, which will be measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS). The secondary outcome parameters are intraoperative bleeding, postoperative drainage, surgery time, length of hospital stay, SF-36, EQ-5D-5 l, HADS, pain medication, deambulation after surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, vertebral segment kyphosis, fracture vertebral body height, compression of the vertebral canal, accuracy of the pedicle screws, and breakage or release of the implants. Patient will be followed up for 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively and evaluated according to the outcomes using clinical and radiological examinations, plain radiographs and computed tomografy (CT).DiscussionSurgical treatment of thoracolumbar fractures by the open or percutaneous minimally invasive approach will be compared in a multicenter randomized study using similar types of fixation systems, and the results will be evaluated according to clinical and radiological parameters at 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months of follow-up.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov approval number: 1.933.631, code: NCT03316703 in may 2017.

Dataset Information

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Fixation Techniques for Thoracolumbar Trauma: A Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets