Na Li1, Wen-Qing Hu2, Wen-Qiang Xin3, Qi-Feng Li3, Peng Tian4. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China, 300052. 2. Department of Rehabilitation, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China, 300052. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China, 30052. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, PR China, 300211.
Abstract
Aim: The objective of this study was to systematically compare the safety and efficacy of porous tantalum metal (TM) implants and autograft in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Methods: Potential academic articles were acquired from the Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Science Direct and other databases. The time range used was from the inception of the electronic databases to March 2018. Gray studies were identified from the references of included literature reports. STATA version 11.0 (Stata Corporation, TX, USA) was used to analyze the pooled data. Results: Four randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified according to the retrieval process. There were significant differences in operation time (mean difference [MD]: -28.846, 95% confidence interval [CI: -47.087, -10.604], p = 0.002) and satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR]: 2.196, 95% CI: [1.061-4. 546]; p = 0.034). However, no significant difference was detected in blood loss (MD: -73.606, 95% CI: [-217.720, 70.509], p = 0.317), hospital stay (MD: -0.512, 95% CI [-1.082, 0.058]; p = 0.079), fusion rate (OR: 0.497, 95% CI [0.079, 3.115]; p = 0.455), visual analog scale (MD: -0.310, 95% CI [-0.433, -0.186]; p < 0.001) or complication rate (risk difference [RD]: -0.140, 95% CI: [-0.378, 0.099]; p = 0.251). Conclusion: Porous TM implants are equally as effective and safe as autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion processes. In addition, porous TM implants could reduce operation time and improve clinical satisfaction significantly.
Aim: The objective of this study was to systematically compare the safety and efficacy of porous tantalum metal (TM) implants and autograft in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Methods: Potential academic articles were acquired from the Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Science Direct and other databases. The time range used was from the inception of the electronic databases to March 2018. Gray studies were identified from the references of included literature reports. STATA version 11.0 (Stata Corporation, TX, USA) was used to analyze the pooled data. Results: Four randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified according to the retrieval process. There were significant differences in operation time (mean difference [MD]: -28.846, 95% confidence interval [CI: -47.087, -10.604], p = 0.002) and satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR]: 2.196, 95% CI: [1.061-4. 546]; p = 0.034). However, no significant difference was detected in blood loss (MD: -73.606, 95% CI: [-217.720, 70.509], p = 0.317), hospital stay (MD: -0.512, 95% CI [-1.082, 0.058]; p = 0.079), fusion rate (OR: 0.497, 95% CI [0.079, 3.115]; p = 0.455), visual analog scale (MD: -0.310, 95% CI [-0.433, -0.186]; p < 0.001) or complication rate (risk difference [RD]: -0.140, 95% CI: [-0.378, 0.099]; p = 0.251). Conclusion: Porous TM implants are equally as effective and safe as autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion processes. In addition, porous TM implants could reduce operation time and improve clinical satisfaction significantly.
Entities:
Keywords:
TM; autograft; meta-analysis; porous metal implant; spinal fusion; tantalum metal