4.5 Article

Anterior versus posterior approach in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis of fusion segments and radiological outcomes

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0415-9

关键词

Lenke 5C; Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Anterior approach; Posterior approach; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Radiological outcomes between anterior and posterior approach in Lenke 5C curves were still controversial. Meta-analysis on published articles to compare fusion segments and radiological outcomes between the two surgical approaches was performed. Methods: Electronic database was conducted for searching studies concerning the anterior versus posterior approach in Lenke 5C curves. After quality assessment, data of means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted. RevMan 5.3 was adopted for data analysis. Results: Seven case-control studies involving 308 Lenke 5C AIS patients were identified in the meta-analysis. No significant differences were noted in correction rate of thoracolumbar/lumbar curve (95 % CI -6.02 to 4.32, P = 0.75) and incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis (95 % CI 0.12 to 7.19, P = 0.94) of final follow-up, in change values of thoracolumbar/lumbar curve (95 % CI -3.28 to 7.19, P = 0.46) and thoracic kyphosis (95 % CI -4.10 to 0.13, P = 0.07). The anterior approach represented a significant shorter fusion segments compared to posterior approach (95 % CI -1.72 to -0.71, P < 0.00001). The posterior approach obtained a larger increasing Cobb angle of lumbar lordosis than the anterior approach (95 % CI -6.06 to -0.61, P = 0.02). Conclusions: The anterior and posterior approach can obtain comparable coronal correction, change values of thoracic kyphosis, and incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis. The anterior approach saves approximate one more fusion segment, and the posterior approach can obtain a larger increasing Cobb angle of lumbar lordosis, from preoperation to final follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据