Comparative effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with anterior screw fixation versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Lumbar degenerative diseases impose a substantial health burden, prompting the exploration of advanced surgical approaches such as Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of OLIF with anterior screw fixation (OLIF-AF) against OLIF with posterior pedicle fixation (OLIF-PF) in addressing these conditions. METHODS: A systematic search across multiple databases identified five studies meeting inclusion criteria, incorporating a total of 271 patients. Comparative analysis encompasses primary and secondary outcomes related to fusion rates, intraoperative parameters, patient-reported measures, and radiographic assessments. RESULTS: Primary outcome analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in total fusion rates between OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF. However, secondary outcomes revealed distinct advantages in OLIF-AF, showcasing lower intraoperative blood loss and reduced operative times compared to OLIF-PF. Nonetheless, patient-reported outcomes, encompassing measures such as pain scores and functional assessments, as well as radiographic parameters, exhibited no significant variations between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: While OLIF-AF displayed favorable results in intraoperative parameters, such as reduced blood loss and shorter operative times, it did not significantly differ in patient-reported outcomes and radiographic assessments compared to OLIF-PF. Interpretation of findings must consider limitations in sample sizes and study heterogeneity. Future investigations with larger, more diverse cohorts and extended follow-ups are imperative to confirm these preliminary findings and comprehend the actual clinical impact of these OLIF techniques in managing lumbar degenerative diseas.

Comparison between the outcomes of transfemoral access and transfemoral access with adjunct upper extremity access in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair: A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endovascular aortic repair is an emerging novel intervention for the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It is crucial to compare the effectiveness of different access sites, such as transfemoral access (TFA) and upper extremity access (UEA). An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases. The primary endpoint was the incidence of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), while the secondary endpoints included technical success, access-site complications, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), spinal cord ischemia, among others. Forest plots were constructed for the pooled analysis of data using the random-effects model in Review Manager, version 5.4. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Our findings in 9403 study participants (6228 in the TFA group and 3175 in the UEA group) indicate that TFA is associated with a lower risk of stroke/TIA [RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40-0.75; p = 0.0002], MI [RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.38-0.69; p < 0.0001], spinal cord ischemia [RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53, p < 0.00001], and shortens fluoroscopy time [SMD: -0.62; 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.24; p = 0.001]. Moreover, TFA required less contrast agent [SMD: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.06; p = 0.02], contributing to its appeal. However, no significant differences emerged in technical success [p = 0.23], 30-day mortality [p = 0.48], ICU stay duration [p = 0.09], or overall hospital stay length [p = 0.22]. Patients with TFA had a lower risk of stroke, MI, and spinal cord ischemia, shorter fluoroscopy time, and lower use of contrast agents. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm and strengthen these findings.