ACE Report Cover
Thoracolumbar burst fractures: Fusion versus nonfusion in surgical treatment
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
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
Autori che hanno contribuito

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.


Dettagli sul finanziamento della pubblicazione +
Finanziamento:
Non-funded
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Rischio di pregiudizio

9/10

Criteri di segnalazione

18/20

Indice di fragilità

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?

Sì = 1

Incerto = 0,5

Non rilevante = 0

No = 0

La valutazione dei criteri di segnalazione valuta la trasparenza con cui gli autori riportano le caratteristiche metodologiche e sperimentali dello studio all'interno della pubblicazione. La valutazione è suddivisa in cinque categorie che vengono presentate di seguito.

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

L'Indice di Fragilità è uno strumento che aiuta l'interpretazione dei risultati significativi, fornendo una misura della forza di un risultato. L'Indice di Fragilità rappresenta il numero di eventi consecutivi che devono essere aggiunti a un risultato dicotomico per rendere il risultato non più significativo. Un numero piccolo rappresenta un risultato più debole, mentre un numero grande rappresenta un risultato più forte.

Perché questo studio era necessario ora?

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.

Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?

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

Caratteristiche dello studio +
Data Source:
MEDLINE, OVID, Springer and Google Scholar were searched until September 2012.
Index Terms:
The terms 'fusion' and 'nonfusion' were each combined with the terms 'thoracic fracture(s)', 'lumbar fracture(s)', 'thoracolumbar fracture(s)', or 'burst fracture(s)'.
Study Selection:
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.
Data Extraction:
Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers, who resolved disagreements using discussion. A standardized form was used by each reviewer in the extraction.
Data Synthesis:
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.
Quali erano i risultati importanti?
  • 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).
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?

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.

Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?

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.

DISCLAIMER

Il contenuto di questa pagina è solo a scopo informativo e non intende sostituire la consulenza, la diagnosi o il trattamento medico professionale. Se ha bisogno di cure mediche, si rivolga sempre al suo medico o al pronto soccorso più vicino. Le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista espressi dalle persone sui contenuti presenti in questa pagina non riflettono le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista di OrthoEvidence.

0 di 4 articoli mensili GRATUITI sbloccati
Ha raggiunto il suo limite di 4 visualizzazioni di articoli gratuiti questo mese

Accesso a OrthoEvidence a soli 1,99 dollari a settimana.

Rimanga in contatto con le ultime prove. Può disdire in qualsiasi momento.
  • Valutazioni critiche dei più recenti studi randomizzati controllati ad alto impatto e delle revisioni sistematiche in ortopedia.
  • Accesso ai contenuti del podcast OrthoEvidence, tra cui collaborazioni con il Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviste con chirurghi di fama internazionale e tavole rotonde su notizie e argomenti ortopedici.
  • Abbonamento a The Pulse, una newsletter bisettimanale basata sulle evidenze scientifiche, progettata per aiutarla a prendere decisioni cliniche migliori.
Upgrade
Bentornato!
Ha dimenticato la password?
Inizi la sua prova gratuita oggi stesso!

Il suo account sarà affiliato a
e includerà l'accesso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
Ha dimenticato la password?

O
Controlli la sua e-mail

Se esiste un account con l'indirizzo e-mail fornito, le verrà inviata un'e-mail di reimpostazione della password. Se non vede l'e-mail, controlli la cartella spam o posta indesiderata.

Per ulteriore assistenza, contatti il nostro team di supporto.

Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Tradurre il Rapporto ACE

OrthoEvidence utilizza un servizio di traduzione di terze parti per rendere i contenuti accessibili in più lingue. Si prega di notare che, sebbene venga fatto ogni sforzo per garantire l'accuratezza, le traduzioni potrebbero non essere sempre perfette.

Come citare questo documento 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

Copiare la citazione
Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Funzionalità per i membri Premium

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence Premium.

Condividi questo articolo ACE Report