Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Spinal Endoscopy versus Traditional Open Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal
Journal of healthcare engineering
ISSN: 2040-2309
Titre abrégé: J Healthc Eng
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
29
11
2021
revised:
10
01
2022
accepted:
12
01
2022
entrez:
28
3
2022
pubmed:
29
3
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Systematic analysis of the incidence of percutaneous spinal endoscopic technique and traditional open surgery for lumbar disc herniation. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort study on complications related to traditional open surgery was searched on the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese journal full-text database (CNKI), Wanfang, and Embase database. Language is not limited. The quality of each study was evaluated, various complications were compiled into electronic baseline tables, and the data from these studies were available. Meta-analysis and synthesis were performed with the RevMan 5.3 software to evaluate the statistical significance of both surgical techniques in terms of various complications. 12 studies were eventually included, and a total of 2,797 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference in postoperative paresthesia between percutaneous spinal endoscopy and traditional open surgery (OR = 1.17, 95% CI (0.82, 1.66), Compared with the traditional open surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation, percutaneous spinal endoscopic technology has obvious advantages in reducing nerve root injury, dural injury, and surgical area wound complications, but it is limited to preventing the technical characteristics of the surgical site, which is worse than that of open surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35340255
doi: 10.1155/2022/6033989
pmc: PMC8942646
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Retracted Publication
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6033989Commentaires et corrections
Type : RetractionIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Xingping Xu et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Jul;194:105918
pubmed: 32446122
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Dec 23;14(1):461
pubmed: 31870395
Pain Physician. 2020 Jan;23(1):49-56
pubmed: 32013278
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Mar 1;22(1):236
pubmed: 33648479
Asian J Surg. 2020 May;43(5):593-602
pubmed: 31594687
Pain Physician. 2020 Jul;23(4):E377-E388
pubmed: 32709184
Int J Surg. 2020 Apr;76:136-143
pubmed: 32165279
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):2129-2134
pubmed: 32930845
J Endourol. 2019 Apr;33(4):291-294
pubmed: 30793924
Global Spine J. 2020 Apr;10(2 Suppl):79S-87S
pubmed: 32528811
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Sep 15;15(1):413
pubmed: 32933553
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 May 1;46(5):E9
pubmed: 31042664
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Jul 8;16(1):443
pubmed: 34238322
World Neurosurg. 2020 Aug;140:e73-e80
pubmed: 32344133
J Spine Surg. 2020 Jan;6(Suppl 1):S208-S223
pubmed: 32195429
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Jan 14;22(1):80
pubmed: 33446166
BJU Int. 2019 Jul;124(1):109-115
pubmed: 30358056
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Oct 19;15(1):479
pubmed: 33076965
World Neurosurg. 2020 Jul;139:488-494
pubmed: 32376381
Asian J Neurosurg. 2019 Jul-Sep;14(3):890-893
pubmed: 31497121
Exp Ther Med. 2020 Feb;19(2):1417-1424
pubmed: 32010317
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Oct 22;2020:1573589
pubmed: 33150166
World Neurosurg. 2019 Aug;128:e504-e512
pubmed: 31051300
Int Orthop. 2020 Feb;44(2):309-317
pubmed: 31773186
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 20;21(6):
pubmed: 32244936
Asian Spine J. 2019 Apr;13(2):334-342
pubmed: 30959588
World Neurosurg. 2020 Jul;139:e255-e264
pubmed: 32294565
World Neurosurg. 2021 Nov 11;:
pubmed: 34775092
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Sep 24;15(1):441
pubmed: 32972436
Neurologia (Engl Ed). 2019 Nov - Dec;34(9):582-588
pubmed: 29599075