Search

Your search keyword '"Yang, Yong-Dong"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Author "Yang, Yong-Dong" Topic follow-up
3 results on '"Yang, Yong-Dong"'

2. What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion?

Author

Zhao, He, Duan, Li-Jun, Gao, Yu-Shan, Yang, Yong-Dong, Tang, Xiang-Sheng, Zhao, Ding-Yan, Xiong, Yang, Hu, Zhen-Guo, Li, Chuan-Hong, and Yu, Xing

Subjects
Total Disc Replacement, bi-level cervical spondylosis, anterior cervical decompression and fusion, Decompression, Surgical, meta-analysis, Spinal Fusion, ComputingMethodologies_DOCUMENTANDTEXTPROCESSING, follow-up, Cervical Vertebrae, Humans, Spondylosis, anterior cervical artificial disc replacement, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Research Article
Abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Background: Nowadays, anterior cervical artificial disc replacement (ACDR) has achieved favorable outcomes in treatment for patients with single-level cervical spondylosis. However, It is still controversial that whether or not it will become a potent therapeutic alternation in treating 2 contiguous levels cervical spondylosis compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ACDR and ACDF in patients with 2 contiguous levels cervical spondylosis. Methods: According to the computer-based online search, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for articles published before July 1, 2017 were searched. The following outcome measures were extracted: neck disability index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, Short Form (SF)-12 mental component summary (MCS), SF-12 physical component summary (PCS), overall clinical success (OCS), patient satisfaction (PS), device-related adverse event (DRAE), subsequent surgical intervention (SSI), neurological deterioration (ND), and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Methodological quality was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers using the Furlan for randomized controlled trial (RCT) and MINORS scale for clinical controlled trials (CCT). The chi-squared test and Higgin I2 test were used to evaluate the heterogeneity. A P

Published
2018

3. Comparison of two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP—a meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trial studies.

Author

Zhao, He, Duan, Li-Jun, Gao, Yu-Shan, Yang, Yong-Dong, Zhao, Ding-Yan, Tang, Xiang-Sheng, Hu, Zhen-guo, Li, Chuan-Hong, Chen, Si-Xue, Liu, Tao, and Yu, Xing

Subjects
BACK, CONFIDENCE intervals, INFORMATION storage & retrieval systems, MEDICAL databases, MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems, LUMBAR vertebrae, MEDLINE, META-analysis, MICROSURGERY, ONLINE information services, ORTHOPEDIC surgery, HEALTH outcome assessment, PAIN, PATIENT satisfaction, QUESTIONNAIRES, REOPERATION, SPINAL stenosis, SURGICAL complications, SYSTEMATIC reviews, RANDOMIZED controlled trials, TREATMENT effectiveness, SEVERITY of illness index
Abstract

Background: Decompressive laminectomy (DI) is a standard operation for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patient with severe claudication symptoms for many years. However, patients whose symptom severity does not meet undergoing invasive surgery make therapeutic options into dilemma. Interspinous spacers (ISP) bridge the gap between surgical interventions and CC in management of LSS. In our study, we aim to systematically assess the two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP. Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve clinical trials concerning the comparison between Superion and X-STOP in treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis before April 2017. The following outcome measures were extracted: (1) Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) patient satisfaction score, (2) axial pain severity, (3) extremity pain severity, (4) back-specific functional impairment, (5) reoperation, and (6) complication. The data analysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.3. Results: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1118 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that the Superion group is superior to X-STOP in axial pain severity (SMD: 0.03; 95% CI 0.15, 0.45; p < 0.0001, I2 = 41%, p = 0.16), ZCQ patient satisfaction score (SMD: 0.23; 95% CI 0.08, 0.38; p = 0.002, I2 = 0%, p = 0.61). However, Superion group showed similarity outcome in extremity pain severity (SMD: 0.18; 95% CI − 0.06, 0.43; p = 0.14, I2 = 62%, p = 0.05), back-specific functional impairment (SMD: 0.04; 95% CI − 0.10, 0.19; p = 0.56, I2 = 0%, p = 0.77), reoperation rate (RR: 1.10; 95% CI 0.82, 1.48; p = 0.51, I2 = 19%, p = 0.30), and complication (RR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.63, 1.53; p = 0.92, I2 = 0%, p = 0.83). Conclusion: Both the Superion and X-STOP interspinous spacers can relieve symptoms of LSS. In addition, the Superion spacer may represent a promising spacer for patient with LSS. As we know, the effectiveness and safety of ISP is still considered investigational and unfavor clinical results in the medical literature may continue to limit the appeal of IPS to many surgeons in the future. However, because of the advantage of IPS technique, it will win a wide place in the future degenerative lumbar microsurgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results