颈椎前、后路两种术式治疗脊髓型颈椎病的Meta分析  

Treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy by anterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery and posterior cervical expansive open-door laminoplasty surgery:a Meta analysis

作　　者：徐韬[1] 马涛[2] 杨天明[1] 陆小明[3] 

机构地区：[1]南京医科大学附属明基医院神经外科,江苏省210024 [2]常州市第一人民医院神经外科 [3]南京医科大学第一附属医院神经外科

出　　处：《江苏医药》2015年第4期426-429,共4页Jiangsu Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的评价颈椎前路减压植骨融合术(ACDFS)和颈椎后路单开门椎管成形术(PCEODLS)治疗脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)的临床疗效及安全性。方法检索Medline、Springer、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库和重庆维普信息数据库,纳入国内外相关文献,采用Review Manager 5.2软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入10个对照研究,共708例患者。两种术式治疗CSM的优良率及JOA改善率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);但PCEODLS的并发症发生率低于ACDFS(P<0.05)。结论 ACDFS和PCEODLS治疗CSM的疗效相仿;但后者并发症发生率较低。Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy（CSM）by the anterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery（ACDFS）and the posterior cervical expansive open-door laminoplasty surgery（PCEODLS）.Methods Data were collected by searching for the literatures in Medline,Springer,CBM,CNKI and VIP,which were analyzed using RevMan 5.2software.Results A total of 708 cases in 10 controlled studies was included.There were no significant differences in both the excellent and good rate of functional recovery and the JOA improvement rate between CSM cases underwent ACDFS and PCEODLS（P〉0.05）,but the incidence of complications was less in CSM cases underwent PCEODLS than that in those underwent ACDFS（P〈0.05）.Conclusion Clinical efficacy of treating CSM by ACDFS is similar to that by PCEODLS.The latter has less complication.

关 键 词：脊髓型颈椎病 减压植骨融合术 META分析 

分 类 号：R681[医药卫生—骨科学]