Search

Abstract Objective This study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It aims to provide reference data for clinical decision-making. Methods We identified randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies on Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating lumbar degenerative diseases based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were managed with Endnote X9 software and meta-analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Extracted outcomes included lower back VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS score, low back pain ODI score, complication rate, fusion rate, time to surgery, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Results ① Thirteen high-quality studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 1015 patients—493 in the Endo-TLIF group and 522 in the MIS-TLIF group. ② Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and final follow-up waist VAS scores, lower limb pain VAS score, ODI index, complications, and fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The MIS-TLIF group had a shorter operative time (MD = 29.13, 95% CI 10.86, 47.39, P = 0.002) than the Endo-TLIF group. However, the Endo-TLIF group had less blood loss (MD = − 76.75, 95% CI − 111.59, − 41.90, P

Objective: The perioperative period of major orthopedic surgery is associated with a high risk of thrombosis, but the best chemopreventive agent for thrombosis prophylaxis is still inconclusive. For this reason, this paper evaluated the efficacy and safety of aspirin versus lowmolecular heparin using a Meta-analysis. Methods: Ten randomized controlled studies on the application of aspirin and low-molecular heparin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in orthopedic major surgery were retrieved by computer searches of PubMed, CochraneLibrary, WebofScience, China Knowledge Network, Wanfang, and Vipul databases according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the literature was managed using Endnote software, and the data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 software was used to perform Meta-analysis of the extracted data, focusing on the effects of these two drugs on pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding events, minor bleeding events, wound complications, mortality and blood loss within 90 days after major orthopedic surgery. Results: (1) Ten randomized controlled trials of high quality were included, with a total of 12,974 patients, 7,026 in the aspirin group and 5,948 in the low-molecular heparin group;(2)Meta-analysis showed that aspirin had a higher incidence of pulmonary embolism (OR=1.59, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.49, P=0.04) and deep vein thrombosis (OR= 1.60, 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.02, P=0.000 1) than low molecular heparin; (3)The incidence of major bleeding events (OR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.55, P=0.60), minor bleeding events (OR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.12, P=0.18), adverse wound reactions (OR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.31, P=0.36), mortality within 90 days (OR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.20 to 2.31, P=0.55) and perioperative blood loss (MD=0.69, 95% CI: 0.20 to 2.31, P=0.55) in both drug groups, mortality within 90 days (OR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.20 to 2.31, P=0.55) and perioperative blood loss (MD=0.69, 95% CI: 0.20 to 2.31, P=0.55) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Low-molecular heparin was superior to aspirin in the prevention of pulmonary embolism and lower extremity deep vein thrombosis after major orthopedic surgery, but the safety and adverse drug reactions of both groups were basically similar.Based on this, the authors recommend that low-molecular heparin should be preferred for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in major orthopaedic surgery; however, the inclusion of randomized controlled trials remains limited, necessitating high-quality, largesample, long-term follow-up clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]