RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Robot guidance (RG) and computer-assisted navigation (CAN) have been increasingly utilized for posterior cervical screw placement in cervical spine surgery, and cervical screw malposition may contribute to catastrophic complications. However, the superiority of the navigation using RG or CAN compared with conventional freehand (FH) techniques remains controversial, and no meta-analysis comparing the two methods in cervical spine surgery has been performed. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for eligible literature. Studies reporting the primary outcomes of the accuracy of cervical screw placement using RG or CAN compared with FH techniques were included. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of odds ratio or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and 18 comparative cohort studies published between 2012 and 2023 consisting of 946 patients and 4163 cervical screws were included in this meta-analysis. The RG and CAN techniques were associated with a substantially higher rate of optimal and clinically acceptable cervical screw accuracy than FH techniques. Furthermore, compared with the FH group, the navigation group showed fewer postoperative adverse events, less blood loss, shorter hospital lengths of stay, and lower postoperative Neck Disability Index scores. However, the navigation and FH groups had equivalent intraoperative times and postoperative visual analog scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both RG and CAN are superior to FH techniques in terms of the accuracy of cervical screw placement. Navigation techniques, including RG and CAN methods, are accurate, safe, and feasible in cervical spine surgery.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) can seriously impair the quality of life of patients and has a remarkable comorbidity with psychological symptoms, which, in turn, can further exacerbate the symptoms of CLBP. Psychological treatments are critical and nonnegligent for the management of CLBP, and thus, should attract sufficient attention. However, current evidence does not suggest the superiority and effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP.Thus, this study was designed to compare the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP and to recommend preferred strategies for attenuating psychological symptoms in clinical practice. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), PubMed, Embase Database, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception until March 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare different nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP were eligible. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was used. Four reviewers in pairs and divided into two groups independently performed literature selection, data extraction, and risk of bias, and certainty of evidence assessments. This NMA was conducted with a random effects model under a frequentist framework. The major outcomes were depression, anxiety, and mental health presented as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with the corresponding 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 66 RCTs that randomized 4806 patients with CLBP met the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was typically low or some risks of bias (47 out of 66 trials, 71.3%), and the precision of summary estimates for effectiveness varied substantially. In addition, 7 categories of interventions with 26 specific treatments were evaluated. For depression, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.63 to -0.78), biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.12), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.02) exhibited remarkable effectiveness in reducing depression compared with the control group. For managing anxiety, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.35, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.80), multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.06), and a biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.46, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.14) were substantially superior to the control group. For improving mental health, multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.39), exercise (pooled SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.11), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.02-0.92) demonstrated statistically substantial effectiveness compared with the control group. The rank probability indicated that mind body therapy achieved the highest effectiveness in reducing depression and anxiety among patients with CLBP. Besides, the combined results should be interpreted cautiously based on the results of analyses evaluating the inconsistency and certainty of the evidence. CONCLUSION: This systemic review and NMA suggested that nonpharmacological interventions show promise for reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP. In particular, mind body therapy and a biopsychosocial approach show considerable promise, and mind body therapy can be considered a priority choice in reducing depression and anxiety. These findings can aid clinicians in assessing the potential risks and benefits of available treatments for CLBP comorbidity with psychological symptoms and provide evidence for selecting interventions in clinical practice. More RCTs involving different interventions with rigorous methodology and an adequate sample size should be conducted in future research.