Cargando…
Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Autogenous granular bone graft (AG), autogenous massive bone graft (AM), and titanium mesh bone graft (TM) are the three commonly utilized bone implant methods for spinal tuberculosis. However, the gold standard is still controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10193734/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37202780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03848-9 |
_version_ | 1785043876511219712 |
---|---|
author | Li, Jian Qin, Xiuyu Wang, Jiani Yang, Wangzhe Bai, Junjun Lv, Jia |
author_facet | Li, Jian Qin, Xiuyu Wang, Jiani Yang, Wangzhe Bai, Junjun Lv, Jia |
author_sort | Li, Jian |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Autogenous granular bone graft (AG), autogenous massive bone graft (AM), and titanium mesh bone graft (TM) are the three commonly utilized bone implant methods for spinal tuberculosis. However, the gold standard is still controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and surgical safety of three primary bone graft modalities. METHODS: For systematic literature review, several databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched up to December 2022. Stata (version 14.0) was employed for data analysis. RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis included 517 patients from 7 articles whose qualities are acceptable based on our quality assessment criteria. In direct comparison, AG was associated with a shorter operation time (MD = 73.51; CI 30.65–116.37) and a lesser blood loss (MD = 214.30; CI 7.17–421.44) than AM. TM had fewer loss of Cobb angle than AG (MD = 1.45; CI 0.13–2.76) and AM (MD = 1.21; CI 0.42–1.99). Compared with AG, TM (MD = 0.96; CI 0.06–1.87) was related to a shorter bone graft fusion time. In indirect comparison, for the clinical parameters, the rank of CRP (from best to worst) was as follows: TM (58%) > AM (27%) > AG (15%), the rank of ESR (from best to worst) was as follows: AG (61%) > AM (21%) > TM (18%), and the rank of VAS (from best to worst) was as follows: AG (65%) > TM (33%) > AM (2%). In the aspect of surgical data, what is noteworthy is that AG showed less blood loss [AG (93%) > TM (6%) > AM (1%)], operative time [AG (97%) > TM (3%) > AM (0)], and complications [AG (75%) > TM (21%) > AM (4%)] than AM and TM. As for imaging parameters, the rank of the loss of Cobb angle (from best to worst) was as follows: TM (99%) > AM (1%) > AG (0). Moreover, TM showed a shorter bone graft fusion time than AM and AG: TM (96%) > AM (3%) > AG (1%). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that AG might be the optional treatment for spinal tuberculosis owing to the outcomes of surgical safety. Moreover, TM is another right choice which can significantly reduce the loss of Cobb angle and shorten bone graft fusion time with long‐term follow‐up. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10193734 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101937342023-05-19 Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis Li, Jian Qin, Xiuyu Wang, Jiani Yang, Wangzhe Bai, Junjun Lv, Jia J Orthop Surg Res Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Autogenous granular bone graft (AG), autogenous massive bone graft (AM), and titanium mesh bone graft (TM) are the three commonly utilized bone implant methods for spinal tuberculosis. However, the gold standard is still controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and surgical safety of three primary bone graft modalities. METHODS: For systematic literature review, several databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched up to December 2022. Stata (version 14.0) was employed for data analysis. RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis included 517 patients from 7 articles whose qualities are acceptable based on our quality assessment criteria. In direct comparison, AG was associated with a shorter operation time (MD = 73.51; CI 30.65–116.37) and a lesser blood loss (MD = 214.30; CI 7.17–421.44) than AM. TM had fewer loss of Cobb angle than AG (MD = 1.45; CI 0.13–2.76) and AM (MD = 1.21; CI 0.42–1.99). Compared with AG, TM (MD = 0.96; CI 0.06–1.87) was related to a shorter bone graft fusion time. In indirect comparison, for the clinical parameters, the rank of CRP (from best to worst) was as follows: TM (58%) > AM (27%) > AG (15%), the rank of ESR (from best to worst) was as follows: AG (61%) > AM (21%) > TM (18%), and the rank of VAS (from best to worst) was as follows: AG (65%) > TM (33%) > AM (2%). In the aspect of surgical data, what is noteworthy is that AG showed less blood loss [AG (93%) > TM (6%) > AM (1%)], operative time [AG (97%) > TM (3%) > AM (0)], and complications [AG (75%) > TM (21%) > AM (4%)] than AM and TM. As for imaging parameters, the rank of the loss of Cobb angle (from best to worst) was as follows: TM (99%) > AM (1%) > AG (0). Moreover, TM showed a shorter bone graft fusion time than AM and AG: TM (96%) > AM (3%) > AG (1%). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that AG might be the optional treatment for spinal tuberculosis owing to the outcomes of surgical safety. Moreover, TM is another right choice which can significantly reduce the loss of Cobb angle and shorten bone graft fusion time with long‐term follow‐up. BioMed Central 2023-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10193734/ /pubmed/37202780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03848-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Li, Jian Qin, Xiuyu Wang, Jiani Yang, Wangzhe Bai, Junjun Lv, Jia Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10193734/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37202780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03848-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lijian comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsurgicalsafetyamongthreebonegraftmodalitiesinspinaltuberculosisanetworkmetaanalysis AT qinxiuyu comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsurgicalsafetyamongthreebonegraftmodalitiesinspinaltuberculosisanetworkmetaanalysis AT wangjiani comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsurgicalsafetyamongthreebonegraftmodalitiesinspinaltuberculosisanetworkmetaanalysis AT yangwangzhe comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsurgicalsafetyamongthreebonegraftmodalitiesinspinaltuberculosisanetworkmetaanalysis AT baijunjun comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsurgicalsafetyamongthreebonegraftmodalitiesinspinaltuberculosisanetworkmetaanalysis AT lvjia comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsurgicalsafetyamongthreebonegraftmodalitiesinspinaltuberculosisanetworkmetaanalysis |