Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of anterior and posterior approach in the treatment of acute and chronic cervical spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis.
Ding, Yi; Li, Ning; Hu, Wenjing; Jiang, Wenkang; Zhu, Qianmiao; Jiang, Ting; Cheng, Huilin.
Afiliación
  • Ding Y; School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
  • Li N; School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
  • Hu W; Department of Neurosurgery, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
  • Jiang W; School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
  • Zhu Q; School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
  • Jiang T; School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
  • Cheng H; School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Front Surg ; 11: 1410220, 2024.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39247704
ABSTRACT

Objective:

A cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) is a traumatic catastrophe that often leads to neurological dysfunction. The optimal surgical procedure for the treatment of CSCI remains debatable. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the neurological outcomes, complications, and clinical factors between anterior and posterior approach in CSCI treatment.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library from their inceptions to october 2023. Preoperative and postoperative Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and calculated recovery rates (RRs) were compared between the two strategies, and differences in complication rates, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and length of stay were also analyzed.

Results:

A total of five studies containing 613 patients were included, with 320 patients undergoing the anterior approach and 293 patients undergoing the posterior approach. Four of the studies included were retrospective cohort studies of high quality as assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Additionally, there was one randomized controlled trial evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Although both anterior and posterior approaches effectively facilitate spinal decompression and promote good neurological recovery, there was no significant difference in the incidences of neurological dysfunction and complications or other clinical features between the two approaches.

Conclusion:

There is no evidence thus far supports one approach over the other. Large-scale randomized controlled studies are warranted to further distinguish these two methods. Systematic Review Registration https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO [CRD42023438831].
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Surg Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Suiza
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Surg Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Suiza