Search

Purpose: The clinical outcomes of patients who received a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with those of patients who did not receive a cervical collar. Methods: All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases as of 1 October 2023 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4. Results: Four studies with a total of 406 patients were included, and three of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis of the short-form 36 results revealed that wearing a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion was more beneficial (P < 0.05). However, it is important to note that when considering the Neck Disability Index at the final follow-up visit, not wearing a cervical collar was found to be more advantageous. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative cervical range of motion, fusion rate, or neck disability index at 6 weeks postoperatively (all P > 0.05) between the cervical collar group and the no cervical collar group. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in the 6-week postoperative cervical range of motion, fusion rate, or neck disability index between the cervical collar group and the no cervical collar group. However, compared to patients who did not wear a cervical collar, patients who did wear a cervical collar had better scores on the short form 36. Interestingly, at the final follow-up visit, the neck disability index scores were better in the no cervical collar group than in the cervical collar group. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023466583. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The clinical outcomes of using a zero-profile for anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with anterior cervical plates. Methods: All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, EBSOChost, and EMBASE databases as of 1 October 2021 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4. Results: Seven randomized controlled studies were included with a total of 528 patients, and all studies were randomized controlled studies. The meta-analysis outcomes indicated that the use of zero-profile fixation for anterior cervical decompression and fusion was better than anterior cervical plate fixation regarding the incidence of postoperative dysphagia (P < 0.05), adjacent-level ossification (P < 0.05), and operational time (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale, Neck Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (all P > 0.05) between the zero-profile and anterior cervical plate groups. Conclusions: The systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that zero-profile and anterior cervical plates could result in good postoperative outcomes in anterior cervical decompression and fusion. No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale, Neck Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale. However, the zero-profile is superior to the anterior cervical plate in the following measures: incidence of postoperative dysphagia, adjacent-level ossification, and operational time. PROSPERO registration CRD42021278214. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The clinical outcomes of using a tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation were evaluated by comparison with conventional microdiscectomy. Methods: All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases as of 1 May 2023 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4. Results: This meta-analysis included four randomized controlled studies with a total of 523 patients. The results showed that using tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation was more effective than conventional microdiscectomy in improving the Oswestry Disability Index (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in operating time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale, reoperation rate, postoperative recurrence rate, dural tear incidence, and complications rate (all P > 0.05) between the tubular microdiscectomy and conventional microdiscectomy groups. Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, it was found that the tubular microdiscectomy group had better outcomes than the conventional microdiscectomy group in terms of Oswestry Disability Index. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operating time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale, reoperation rate, postoperative recurrence rate, dural tear incidence, and complications rate. Current research suggests that tubular microdiscectomy can achieve clinical results similar to those of conventional microdiscectomy. PROSPERO registration number is: CRD42023407995. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]