scholarly journals Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingjie Lu ◽  
Yuepeng Fang ◽  
Xu Shen ◽  
Dongdong Lu ◽  
Liyu Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Anterior Plate ◽  
Subsidence Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Final Followup ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background Zero-profile anchored cage (ZP) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate?Methods We performed a meta-analysis of studies which compared the subsidence rate of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematical search covered Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analysed by RevMan 5.3 software.Results Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in ZP group was significantly higher than with CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multi-level surgery. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate and cervical aligment in the final followup between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia at each follow-up time than the ZP group.Conclusion ZP had a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP. Although there was a high occurrence of swallowing discomfort, we are more agreed that the anterior plate should be used in multi-level surgery as far as possible to reduce the subsidence and adverse clinical symptoms in the long term.

scholarly journals Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingjie Lu ◽  
Yuepeng Fang ◽  
Xu Shen ◽  
Dongdong Lu ◽  
Liyu Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Subsidence Rate ◽  
Radiological Data ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Score Fusion ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background: The zero-profile anchored cage ( ZP ) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of studies that compared the subsidence rates of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematic search covered the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in the ZP group was significantly higher than that in the CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In the subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than that of the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multilevel (≥2-level) procedures. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate or cervical alignment in the final follow-up between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia than the ZP group at each follow-up time. Conclusion: Based on the limited evidence, we suggest that ZP has a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP, although with elevated swallowing discomfort. A high-quality, multi-center randomized controlled trial is required to validate our results in the future.

scholarly journals Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingjie Lu ◽  
Yuepeng Fang ◽  
Xu Shen ◽  
Dongdong Lu ◽  
Liyu Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Subsidence Rate ◽  
Radiological Data ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Score Fusion ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background: The zero-profile anchored cage ( ZP ) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of studies that compared the subsidence rates of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematic search covered the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in the ZP group was significantly higher than that in the CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In the subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than that of the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multilevel (≥2-level) procedures. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate or cervical alignment in the final follow-up between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia than the ZP group at each follow-up time. Conclusion: Based on the limited evidence, we suggest that ZP has a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP, although with elevated swallowing discomfort. A high-quality, multi-center randomized controlled trial is required to validate our results in the future.

scholarly journals Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingjie Lu ◽  
Yuepeng Fang ◽  
Xu Shen ◽  
Dongdong Lu ◽  
Liyu Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Subsidence Rate ◽  
Radiological Data ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Score Fusion ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background: The zero-profile anchored cage (ZP) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of studies that compared the subsidence rates of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematic search covered the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software.Results: Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in the ZP group was significantly higher than that in the CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In the subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than that of the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multilevel (≥ 2-level) procedures. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate or cervical alignment in the final follow-up between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia than the ZP group at each follow-up time. Conclusion: Based on the limited evidence, we suggest that ZP has a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP, although with elevated swallowing discomfort. A high-quality, multi-center randomized controlled trial is required to validate our results in the future.

scholarly journals Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Llumbar Degenerative Diseases, which one is better: A meta-analysis Through a Ggrade Analysis of Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
aixian tian ◽  
xinlong ma ◽  
jianxiong Ma
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract BackgroundTo explore the efficacy and safety between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.MethodsWe searched the literature in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The index words were posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF, lumbar interbody fusion, spinal fusion, degenerative disc disease and lumbar degenerative diseases. Primary outcomes were fusion rate and complications. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (ΔVAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ΔODI), total blood loss, operation time and length of hospital stay. Review Manager 5.3 and Stata13.1 was used for the analysis of forest plots, heterogeneity, sensitivity and publication bias.Results17 studies were included (N=1562; PLIF, n=835; TLIF, n=727). The pooled data showed PLIF had a higher complications (P= 0.000), especially in nerve injury (p = 0.003) and dural tear (p = 0.005). PLIF required longer operation time (p = 0.004), more blood loss (p = 0.000) and hospital stays (p = 0.006). Surprisingly subgroup analysis showed there was significant difference in complications in patients under 55 (p = 0.000) and Asian countries (p = 0.000). No statistical difference was found between the two groups with regard to fusion rate (p = 0.593),ΔVAS (p = 0.364) andΔODI (p = 0.237).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed there were no significant difference in fusion rate, ΔVAS and ΔODI. However TLIF could reduce complications, especially nerve injury and dural tear. Besides, TLIF was associated with statistically significant less blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter length of hospital stay.

scholarly journals The radiological outcome in lumbar interbody fusion among rheumatoid arthritis patients: a 20-year retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuan-Kai Tung ◽  
Yun-Che Wu ◽  
Kun-Hui Chen ◽  
Chien-Chou Pan ◽  
Wen-Xian Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Subsidence Rate ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cage Subsidence

Abstract Background Clinical outcomes amongst Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients have shown satisfactory results being reported after lumbar surgery. The increased adoption of the interbody fusion technique has been due to a high fusion rate and less invasive procedures. However, the radiographic outcome for RA patients after receiving interbody fusion has scarcely been addressed in the available literature. Methods Patients receiving interbody fusion including ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF were examined for implant cage motion and fusion status at two-year follow-up. Parameters for the index correction level including ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH were measured and compared at pre-OP, post-OP, and two-year follow-up. Results We enrolled 64 RA patients at 104 levels (mean 64.0 years old, 85.9% female) received lumbar interbody fusion. There were substantial improvement in ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH after surgery, with both ADH and PDH having significantly dropped at two-year follow up. The OLIF group suffered from a higher subsidence rate with no significant difference in fusion rate when compared to TLIF. The fusion rate and subsidence rate for all RA patients was 90.4 and 28.8%, respectively. Conclusions We revealed the radiographic outcomes of lumbar interbody fusions towards symptomatic lumbar disease in RA patients with good fusion outcome despite the relative high subsidence rate amongst the OLIF group. Those responsible for intra-operative endplate management should be more cautious to avoid post-OP cage subsidence.

scholarly journals Dose dependence of efficacy but not of safety in sublingual immunotherapy

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Frati ◽  
C. Incorvaia ◽  
F. Marcucci ◽  
L. Sensi ◽  
G. Di Cara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sublingual Immunotherapy ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dose Dependence ◽  
Subcutaneous Immunotherapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Systemic Reactions ◽  
Significant Difference

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) currently represents, as indicated by meta-analysis of its efficacy and safety, a valid option to the generally used traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for treating respiratory allergy. Regarding efficacy, recent studies demonstrated that, similar to what has already been observed in SCIT as well as in experimental and clinical studies about the magnitudo of allergen exposure, the effectiveness on both clinical symptoms and immunologic changes depends on the amount of allergen administered during treatment. In addition, in vitro studies addressed with the role of dendritic cells, currently considered to be of pivotal importance in orienting toward tolerance the immune response to allergens, showed that the internalisation of allergen molecules, which is followed by tolerogenic presentation to T cells, depends on the amount of allergen. However, such dose dependence is not apparent concerning the safety. In fact, the comparison of studies respectively conducted with high and low allergen doses did not show differences in the rate of systemic reactions, which in any case never had the presentation of anaphylaxis, and instead a significant difference in the rate of local reactions, following the oral and gastrointestinal contact with the allergen extract, in favour of high dose studies.

scholarly journals Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanthika Wasinpongwanich ◽  
Tanawin Nopsopon ◽  
Krit Pongpirul
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spine Diseases

Purpose Surgical treatment is mandatory in some patients with lumbar spine diseases. To obtain spine fusion, many operative techniques were developed with different fusion rates and clinical results. This study aimed to collect randomized controlled trial (RCT) data to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases was searched for studies up to 13 February 2020. The meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complication in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar diseases. Results The literature search identified 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate (RR=0.84 [95% CI 0.72, 0.97], p=0.02, I2=0.0%) at 1-year follow-up while there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow up (RR=1.06 [95% CI 0.96, 1.18], p=0.27, I2=69.0%). The estimated risk ratio of total adverse events (RR=0.90 [95% CI 0.59, 1.38], p=0.63, I2=0.0%) and revision rate (RR=0.78 [95%CI 0.34, 1.79], p=0.56, I2=39.0%) showed no difference. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (MD=31.88 [95% CI 5.33, 58.44], p=0.02, I2=92.0%). There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of the blood loss, and clinical outcomes. Conclusions Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, our study demonstrated similar outcomes of TLIF with other techniques for lumbar diseases in regard to fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications.

scholarly journals Outcome of endoscopic vs microsurgical transsphenoidal resection for Cushing’s disease

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. R26-R37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nidan Qiao
Keyword(s):  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Cushing’S Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cushing's Disease ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Microscopic Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Definition Of

Introduction It is unclear whether the proportions of remission and the recurrence rates differ between endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (TS) and microscopic TS in Cushing’s disease (CD); thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate studies of endoscopic TS and microscopic TS. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed to identify relevant studies. Remission and recurrence were used as outcome measures following surgical treatment of CD. Results A total of 24 cohort studies involving 1670 adult patients were included in the comparison. Among these studies, 702 patients across 9 studies underwent endoscopic TS, and 968 patients across 15 studies underwent microscopic TS. Similar baseline characteristics were observed in both groups. There was no significant difference in remission between the two groups: 79.7% (95% CI: 73.1–85.0%) in the endoscopic group and 76.9% (95% CI: 71.3–81.6%) in the microscopic group (P = 0.485). It appears that patients who underwent endoscopic surgery experience recurrence less often than patients who underwent microscopic surgery, with recurrence proportions of 11.0% and 15.9%, respectively (P = 0.134). However, if follow-up time is taken into account, both groups had a recurrence rate of approximately 4% per person per year (95% CI: 3.1–5.4% and 3.6–5.1%, P = 0.651). Conclusions We found that remission proportion and recurrence rate were the same in patients who underwent endoscopic TS as in patients who underwent microscopic TS. The definition of diagnosis, remission and recurrence should always be considered in the studies assessing therapeutic efficacy in CD.

P–426 Uterine Natural Killer Cells in Recurrent Miscarriage and Implantation Failure: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E V Woon ◽  
O Greer ◽  
N Shah ◽  
V Male ◽  
M Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Nk Cells ◽  
Early Pregnancy ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Recurrent Miscarriage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Implantation Failure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Uterine Nk Cells ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Study question Do women with recurrent miscarriage (RM) or implantation failure (RIF) have different levels of uterine Natural Killer (NK) cells compared to fertile controls? Summary answer Women with RIF but not RM are associated with significantly higher levels of CD56+ uterine NK cells compared to controls. What is known already Uterine NK cells (uNK) are different from peripheral NK cells (pNK) and are important in early pregnancy for development of the placenta. The association between uNK and RM/RIF is less clear, but dysfunction of uNK is believed to result in early pregnancy failure. Previous systematic reviews by Seshadri (2014) and Tang (2013) on infertile and RM patients showed no significant difference in uNK levels and highlighted need for further studies. Since, many prospective studies have been published and therefore warrant an updated systematic review. On the other hand, evidence for correlation between uNK and pNK is sparse and needs clarification. Study design, size, duration We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate three outcomes. The primary outcome was the difference of uNK level in RM/RIF compared to controls. The secondary outcome was livebirth rate in women with RM/RIF with high compared to normal uNK level, and the tertiary outcome was correlation between uNK and pNK in RM/RIF. Participants/materials, setting, methods The electronic database search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and bibliographies from included articles from inception to December 2020 using a combination of MESH and keywords. Search, screen, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Quality assessment was conducted with ROBINS-I and meta-analysis with Revman 5.3. Out of 4636 studies screened, 43 studies (2539 women) and 3 studies each (598 and 77 women) were analysed for primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes respectively. Main results and the role of chance Our meta-analysis showed that CD56+ uNK were significantly higher in women with RIF but not RM compared to controls (SMD 0.60; 95% CI 0.12–1.08]. Subgroup analysis in RM patients showed no significant difference whether definition of 2 or 3 previous RM was used, in primary/secondary RM compared to controls, or in primary versus secondary RM. CD56+ uNK were significantly higher in RM/RIF when sampled during mid-luteal phase [SMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.19–0.93] but not in the early pregnancy decidua. Interestingly, there was significant difference in CD56+ uNK when analysed by immunohistochemistry [SMD 0.50; CI 0.05–0.94] but not by flow cytometry, and when CD56+ uNK were reported as percentage over total endometrial cells [SMD 0.58; 95% CI 0.10–1.07]. Further subgroup analysis showed significant difference in CD16 + [SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.18–0.89] but not in CD56+CD16-, CD56+CD16+ or CD57. For pregnancy outcome, there was no significant difference in livebirth rate in RM/RIF patients with high uNK compared to normal uNK [RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86–1.30]. Mean uNK level in RM patients with subsequent miscarriage was not significantly higher than subsequent livebirth. Finally, the pooled correlation between CD56 pNK and CD56 uNK (r = 0.42; 95% CI –0.04–0.73] was not significant in RM/RIF patients. Limitations, reasons for caution The meta-analysis is limited by quality of some of the studies. Some data were presented in median that was transformed to mean which may result in data skew. Other confounding factors e.g. maternal age, fetal karyotype, number of previous miscarriages and variable definition of controls may contribute to bias. Wider implications of the findings: Clinical interpretation of uNK level needs to be treated with caution because there is significant heterogeneity in method of analysis. There may be a role for uNK measurement in RIF patients however further studies to understand pathophysiology underlying elevated uNK is warranted before recommending it as a diagnostic tool. Trial registration number N/A

scholarly journals SURG-16. SUPRATOTAL VERSUS GROSS TOTAL RESECTION OF GLIOBLASTOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi243-vi243
Author(s):  
Christina Jackson ◽  
John Choi ◽  
Carrie Price ◽  
Chetan Bettegowda ◽  
Michael Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gross Total Resection ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Total Resection ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Supratotal Resection ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract INTRODUCTION Due to the infiltrative nature of glioblastoma(GBM) outside of the contrast enhancing region in the peritumoral zone, there is increasing movement to perform supratotal resections (SpTR) by extending the edge of resection beyond the contrast enhancing portion of the tumor. However, there is currently no consensus on the potential survival benefit of SpTR in GBM as compared to gross total resection (GTR). METHODS Therefore, we performed a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines and performed a comprehensive literature search on Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to August 16, 2018, to identify articles comparing overall survival (OS) after SpTR versus GTR. Furthermore, we assessed study quality using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. RESULTS We identified 8902 unique citations, of which 11 articles and 2 abstracts met study inclusion criteria. 925 patients underwent SpTR out of a total of 2137 patients. 9 of the 13 studies demonstrated improved survival with SpTR compared to GTR (median improvement in OS of 10.5 months), with no significant difference in post-operative complication rate. Conversely, one abstract found worsened outcomes with SpTR compared to GTR (median decrease in OS of 4 months). However, overall study quality was poor, with 12 of the 13 studies of level IV evidence and one study of level IIIb evidence. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies (e.g. differences in adjuvant therapy and lack of standardization of definition of supratotal resection). CONCLUSIONS Our systematic review indicates that SpTR may be associated with improved OS compared to GTR for GBM. However, this is limited by poor study quality and significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies. There is need for prospective clinical trials to further establish standardized guidelines for SpTR in GBM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document