Faculty Opinions recommendation of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Author(s):  
Carlos Bagley
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Roberto J. Perez-Roman ◽  
Wendy Gaztanaga ◽  
Victor M. Lu ◽  
Michael Y. Wang

OBJECTIVE Lumbar stenosis treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between endoscopic (uni- and biportal) and microscopic techniques for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. METHODS Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases from their dates of inception to December 14, 2020. All identified articles were then systematically screened against the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies comparing endoscopic (either uniportal or biportal) with minimally invasive approaches, 2) patient age ≥ 18 years, and 3) diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata. RESULTS From a total of 470 studies, 14 underwent full-text assessment. Of these 14 studies, 13 comparative studies were included for quantitative analysis, totaling 1406 procedures satisfying all criteria for selection. Regarding postoperative back pain, 9 studies showed that endoscopic methods resulted in significantly lower pain scores compared with MIS (mean difference [MD] −1.0, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.4, p < 0.01). The length of stay data were reported by 7 studies, with endoscopic methods associated with a significantly shorter length of stay versus the MIS technique (MD −2.1 days, 95% CI −2.7 to −1.4, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to leg visual analog scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, blood loss, surgical time, and complications, and there were not any significant quality or bias concerns. CONCLUSIONS Both endoscopic and MIS techniques are safe and effective methods for treating patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Patients who undergo endoscopic surgery seem to report less postoperative low-back pain and significantly reduced hospital stay with a trend toward less perioperative blood loss. Future large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings in this study.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 788-805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Ricci ◽  
Riccardo Casadei ◽  
Giovanni Taffurelli ◽  
Carlo Alberto Pacilio ◽  
Marco Ricciardiello ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zhao ◽  
Yuhui Zhang ◽  
Dongni Johansson ◽  
Xingyu Chen ◽  
Fang Zheng ◽  
...  

Objective. The study aims to compare minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of proximal humeral fracture in elder patients. Method. PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wangfang, and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals were searched to identify all relevant studies from inception to October 2016. Data were analyzed with Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manage 5.2. Results. A total of 630 patients from 8 publications were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that MIPO was superior to ORIF in the treatment of proximal humeral fracture in elder patients. It was reflected in reducing blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain, or fracture healing time of the surgery and in improving recovery of muscle strength. Concerning complications, no significant difference was seen between MIPO and ORIF. Conclusion. The MIPO was more suitable than ORIF for treating proximal humeral fracture in elder patients.


2017 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 924-938.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwaseun O. Akinduro ◽  
Panagiotis Kerezoudis ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
Jang W. Yoon ◽  
Jamachi Eluchie ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 1841-1851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amer Harky ◽  
Ahmed Al-Adhami ◽  
Jeffrey S.K. Chan ◽  
Chris H.M. Wong ◽  
Mohamad Bashir

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles M Pearman ◽  
Shi S Poon ◽  
Laura J Bonnett ◽  
Shouvik Haldar ◽  
Tom Wong ◽  
...  

Maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with non-paroxysmal AF is an elusive goal. Some suggest that hybrid ablation, combining minimally invasive epicardial surgical ablation with endocardial catheter ablation, may be more effective than either modality alone. However, randomised trials are lacking. We investigated whether hybrid ablation is more effective than epicardial ablation alone at preventing recurrent AF by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016043389). MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies of standalone minimally invasive epicardial ablation of AF and/or hybrid ablation, identifying 41 non-overlapping studies comprising 2737 patients. A random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were performed. Single-procedure survival free from atrial arrhythmias without antiarrhythmic drugs was similar between epicardial-alone and hybrid approaches at 12 months (epicardial alone 71.5 %; [95 % CI 66.1–76.9], hybrid 63.2 %; [95 % CI 51.5–75.0]) and 24 months (epicardial alone 68.5 %; [95 % CI 57.7–79.3], hybrid 57.0 %; [95 % CI 33.6–80.4]). Freedom from atrial arrhythmias with AADs and rates of unplanned additional catheter ablations were also similar between groups. Major complications occurred more often with hybrid ablation (epicardial alone 2.9 %; [95 % CI 1.9–3.9], hybrid 7.3 %; [95 % CI 4.2–10.5]). Meta-regression suggested that bipolar radiofrequency energy and thoracoscopic access were associated with greater efficacy, but adjusting for these factors did not unmask any difference between epicardial-alone and hybrid ablation. Hybrid and epicardial ablation alone appear to be equally effective treatments for AF, although hybrid ablation may be associated with higher complication rates. These data derived from observational studies should be verified with randomised data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document