No abstract

Objective: To contrast the effects and complications in unilateral and bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in elderly patients. Methods: Multiple databases were adopted to search relevant studies, and the articles eventually satisfied the criteria were included. All the meta-analyses were conducted with the Review Manager 5.2. To estimate the quality of each article, risk of bias table was performed. Results: Finally, 627 patients were enrolled in 9 studies and ultimately met the eligibility criteria. The unilateral and bilateral surgical samples were 314 and 313, respectively. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in Visual Analog Scale/Score (VAS) (MD = −0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−0.24, 0.13], P = .57), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (MD = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.57, 0.62], P = .93) and cement leakage (OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.67, 1.50], P = 1.00) between unilateral group and bilateral group. The surgery time of unilateral PVP is much less than that of bilateral PVP (MD = −8.42, 95% CI [−13.17, −3.66], P = .0005). Patients with bilateral PVP surgery have been injected more cement than patients with a unilateral surgery (MD = −2.56, 95% CI [−2.79, −2.33], P <.00001). Conclusion This study demonstrated unipedicular approach is the preferred surgical technique for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) compared with bilateral PVP since unipedicular approach injects less cement and cost less surgery time.

Background & Aims:Open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) is regarded as the standard (S) approach which is currently available for patients with degenerative lumbar diseases patients. In addition, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has proposed and gradually obtained popularity compared with O-TLIF procedures due to its beneficial outcomes in minimized tissue injury and quicker recovery. Nonetheless, debates exist concerning the use of MI-TLIF with its conflicting outcomes of clinical effect and safety in several publications. The purpose of the current study is to conduct an updated meta-analysis to provide eligible and systematical assessment available for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of MI-TLIF in comparison with O-TLIF.Methods:Publications on the comparison of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in treating degenerative lumbar diseases in last 5 years were collected. After rigorous reviewing on the eligibility of publications, the available data was further extracted from qualified trials. All trials were conducted with the analysis of the summary hazard ratios (HRs) of the interest endpoints, including intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.Results:Admittedly, it is hard to run a clinical RCT to compare the prognosis of patients undergoing O-TLIF and MI-TLIF. A total of 10 trials including non-randomized trials in the current study were collected according to our inclusion criteria. The pooled results of surgery duration indicated that MI-TLIF was highly associated with shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, and less complications. However, there were no remarkable differences in the operate time, VAS-BP, VAS-LP, and ODI between the 2 study groups.Conclusion:The quantitative analysis and combined results of our study suggest that MI-TLIF may be a valid and alternative method with safe profile in comparison of O-TLIF, with reduced blood loss, decreased length of stay, and complication rates. While, no remarkable differences were found or observed in the operate time, VAS-BP, VAS-LP, and ODI. Considering the limited available data and sample size, more RCTs with high quality are demanded to confirm the role of MI-TLIF as a standard approach in treating degenerative lumbar diseases.

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.