...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of investigative surgery: The official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research >Comparison of Posterolateral Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolithesis: A Meta-Analysis
【24h】

Comparison of Posterolateral Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolithesis: A Meta-Analysis

机译：后侧融合和后腰椎间融合在腰椎间盘的治疗中的比较：META分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Aim: Both posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) are the frequently-used techniques to treat lumbar spondylolithesis. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and effectiveness between these two methods. Materials and Methods: The multiple databases were used to search for the relevant studies, and full-text articles involved in the comparison between PLIF and PLF were reviewed. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Results: Finally, 11 relevant studies were eventually satisfied the included criteria. The meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference of the clinical outcome, fusion rate, complication rate and blood loss (RR = 1.07, 95%CI [0.97, 1.17], P = 0.16; RR = 0.84, 95%CI [0.49, 1.45], P = 0.54; RR = 1.07, 95%CI [0.95, 1.21], P = 0.25; SMD = 0.24, 95%CI [-0.50, 0.98], P = 0.52; respectively). No publication bias was observed in this study (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Both these two procedures provide excellent outcomes for patients with spondylolisthesis. There was no significant difference of clinical outcome, complication rate, fusion rate and blood loss between PLIF and PLF techniques.
机译：目的：后腰椎椎体椎间体融合（PLIF）和后侧融合（PLF）是治疗腰椎上的经常使用的技术。该荟萃分析的目的是比较这两种方法之间的安全性和有效性。材料和方法：使用多个数据库用于搜索相关研究，并审查了PLIF和PLF比较中涉及的全文文章。审查经理5.0被采用估算选定物品之间结果的影响。还进行了森林图，敏感性分析和偏差分析。结果：最后，11项相关研究最终满足了包括的标准。荟萃分析表明，临床结果，融合率，并发症率和血液损失没有显着差异（RR = 1.07,95％CI [0.97,117]，P = 0.16; RR = 0.84，95％CI [ 0.49,1.45]，P = 0.54; RR = 1.07,95％CI [0.95,1.21]，P = 0.25; SMD = 0.24,95％CI [-0.50,0.98]，P = 0.52;本研究中未观察到出版物偏见（P> 0.05）。结论：这两种程序都为辛隆角间提供了出色的结果。 PLIF和PLF技术之间的临床结果，并发症率，融合率和失血无显着差异。

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