ACE Report Cover
Thoracolumbar burst fractures: Fusion versus nonfusion in surgical treatment
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
SPINE
Thoracolumbar burst fractures: Fusion versus nonfusion in surgical treatment .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(12):220 PLoS One. 2013 May 21;8(5):e63995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063995. Print 2013
Autores colaboradores

NF Tian YS Wu XL Zhang XL Wu YL Chi FM Mao

4 randomized controlled trials and 1 quasi-randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of fusion in conjunction with posterior pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures were included in this meta-analysis. The purpose of this review was to determine if additional spinal fusion was advantageous over nonfusion. The pooled data indicated that there were no significant differences between groups in kyphotic angles, vertebral body height, functional outcomes, neurological status, implant failure, or hospital stay. Blood loss and operative time were significantly lower in the nonfusion group.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Non-funded
Conflictos:
None disclosed

Riesgo de sesgo

9/10

Criterios de información

18/20

Índice de fragilidad

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

Sí = 1

Incierto = 0,5

No relevante = 0

No = 0

La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.

4/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

4/4

Analysing Data

3/4

Results

3/4

Discussion

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.

¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?

Burst type fractures in the thoracolumbar spine are characterized by excess kyphosis and neurological deficits. Although non-surgical treatment has been suggested to be effective in patients suffering from a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit, surgical treatment allows for the restoration of vertebral height, the correction of the kyphotic angle, increased stability and the decompression of neurostructures. Posterior pedicle screw fixation is a common surgical procedure in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures because of its ability to provide a 3-column stabilization. A number of randomized controlled trials comparing posterior pedicle screw fixation either with or without fusion have recently been conducted, thus giving rise to this meta-analysis.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

What are the benefits of adding spinal fusion to posterior pedicel screw fixation in patients suffering from thoracolumbar burst fractures?

Características del estudio +
Fuente de datos:
MEDLINE, OVID, Springer and Google Scholar were searched until September 2012.
Términos del índice:
The terms 'fusion' and 'nonfusion' were each combined with the terms 'thoracic fracture(s)', 'lumbar fracture(s)', 'thoracolumbar fracture(s)', or 'burst fracture(s)'.
Selección de estudios:
Studies included in the analysis were 3 randomized controlled trials (which examined the effects of fusion when combined with short-segment fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures), and 1 quasi-randomized controlled trial (which examined the effect of fusion when combined with long-segment fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures). Combining all 4 studies gave a total of 220 patients with a male to female ratio of 2.5:1. Mean age was 35.1 years and 96.8% of the fractures were at the T12 to L1 level.
Extracción de datos:
Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers, who resolved disagreements using discussion. A standardized form was used by each reviewer in the extraction.
Síntesis de datos:
Data from all studies were pooled using Review Manager 5.0 software. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using risk ratios, while continuous outcomes were pooled using weighted mean differences. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared and I-squared tests. If heterogeneity was significant (as indicated by an I-squared value of > 70% or a p value of <0.10 for the chi-squared test), a random-effects model was used. However, if heterogeneity was not significant, a fixed-effects model was used.
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
  • Pooled kyphotic angle data from 3 studies indicated that there was no significant difference between groups in postoperative kyphotic angle (0.14 degrees; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.53; p=0.49), kyphotic angle at last visit (-0.20 degrees; 95% CI -0.85 to 0.45; p=0.55), and lost kyphotic angle (-0.05 degrees; 95% CI -0.63 to 0.53), while 1 study revealed no significant differences between groups in correction of the kyphotic angle (0.40 degrees; 95% CI -2.72 to 3.52; p=0.8). A chi-squared analysis revealed no heterogeneity between studies (p>0.1).
  • Pooled vertebral body height (VBH) data from 2 studies indicated that there was no significant difference between groups in postoperative decreased VBH (1.14%; 95% CI -1.32 to 3.60; p=0.36) or decreased VBH at last visit (1.50%; 95% CI -8.99 to 11.98; p=0.78).
  • Pooled functional outcome data from 3 studies (all assessed using the Greenough low back outcome scale) indicated that there was no difference in functional outcomes between groups at the last visit (-0.68; 95% CI -3.24 to 1.87; p=0.6).
  • Pooled data from 3 studies indicated that there was no difference between groups in neurological status at final follow-up (p=0.794).
  • Pooled data from all 4 studies indicated that there was no difference in implant failure rate between the two groups (RR=1.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 5.40; p=0.28). There was no heterogeneity amongst studies (I-squared = 0%; p=0.92).
  • Pooled data from all 4 studies indicated that there was a significantly reduced operative time in the nonfusion group (weighted mean difference of 55.04 min; 95% CI 32.80 to 77.28; p<0.0001). There was, however, statistically significant heterogeneity amongst studies (I-squared = 70%; p=0.02).
  • Pooled data from 3 trials revealed that the nonfusion group suffered significantly less blood loss compared to the fusion group (weighted mean difference of 189.5 mL; 95% CI 86.5 to 292.5; p=0.0003). There was, however, significant heterogeneity amongst studies (I-squared = 80%; p=0.006).
  • Pooled data from 3 trials revealed that there was no significant difference in hospital stay between groups (weighted mean difference of -0.9 days; 95% CI -2.2 to 0.4; p=0.19). There was no heterogeneity amongst studies (I-squared = 0%; p=0.83).
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

There was no significant difference in kyphotic angles, vertebral body height, functional outcomes, neurological status, implant failure, or hospital stay between the fusion and nonfusion groups when combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures. There was, however, significantly decreased operative time and blood loss in the nonfusion group.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

This meta-analysis does not support the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures with posterior pedicle screw fixation in conjunction with fusion over nonfusion. This finding should be interpreted with caution, as there was significant heterogeneity amongst studies for certain outcomes. In addition, more than half of the patients included in this meta-analysis did not experience neurological deficit. Therefore, future studies are required to evaluate the effect of non-surgical treatment in patients who are not neurologically intact.

DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD

El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
Ha alcanzado su límite de vistas de 4 artículos gratuitos este mes

Acceda a OrtoEvidencia por tan sólo 1,99 $ a la semana.

Manténgase conectado con las últimas pruebas. Cancele en cualquier momento.
  • Valoraciones críticas de los últimos ensayos controlados aleatorizados de gran impacto y revisiones sistemáticas en ortopedia
  • Acceso al contenido del podcast OrthoEvidence, que incluye colaboraciones con el Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas con cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente y mesas redondas sobre noticias y temas ortopédicos
  • Suscripción a The Pulse, un boletín quincenal basado en la evidencia y diseñado para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bienvenido
¿Ha olvidado su contraseña?
Comience hoy mismo su prueba GRATUITA

Su cuenta estará afiliada a
e incluye acceso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
¿Olvidó su contraseña?

O
Compruebe su correo electrónico

Si existe una cuenta con la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada, se le enviará un correo electrónico para restablecer la contraseña. Si no ve el correo electrónico, compruebe su carpeta de correo no deseado o spam.

Si necesita más ayuda póngase en contacto con nuestro equipo de asistencia.

Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Traducir Informe ACE

OrthoEvidence utiliza un servicio de traducción de terceros para que el contenido sea accesible en varios idiomas. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque se hace todo lo posible para garantizar la exactitud, las traducciones no siempre son perfectas.

Cómo citar esto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Thoracolumbar burst fractures: Fusion versus nonfusion in surgical treatment. OE Journal. 2013;1(12):220. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/thoracolumbar-burst-fractures-fusion-versus-nonfusion-in-surgical-treatment

Copiar cita
Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Función de miembro Premium

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta Premium de OrthoEvidence.

Compartir ACE Report