Various approaches for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy:a meta-analysis on clinical effectiveness and safety / 中国组织工程研究

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:A large number of studies have confirmed that anterior approach and posterior approach for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy were effective, but there is stil no conclusion in which one is better. OBJECTIVE:To systematical y assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of anterior approach versus posterior approach for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. METHODS:The databases such as The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), PubMed (from 1966 to March 2013), OVID (from 1950 to March 2013), EMbase (from 1966 to March 2013), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (from 1978 to March 2013), WanFang Database (from 1998 to March 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (from 1999 to March 2013) were electronical y searched and five relevant journals were searched by hand to col ect the randomized control ed trials or non-randomized control ed trials about the clinical effectiveness and safety of anterior approach versus posterior approach for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan5.2 software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:A total of 11 control ed trials involving 814 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that, compared with posterior approach, postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were better (P<0.000 01), improvement rate of neurological function was higher (P=0.000 3), the incidence of C5 root palsy was lower (P=0.007), but operation time was longer (P<0.000 01), amount of intraoperative bleedin g was larger (P=0.000 7), incidence of adjacent segments degeneration was higher (P=0.01), incidence of postoperative complications was higher (P<0.000 01) and the rate of secondary surgical procedures was higher (P=0.003) after anterior approach. Additional y, there were no differences between the two groups in the cervical range of motion (P=0.56). For quantity limitation and low methodological quality of included studies, this conclusion stil needs to be further proved by performing more high-quality and large-scale randomized control ed trials.