Comparison of intraoperative blood loss and perioperative complications between preoperative embolization and nonembolization combined with spinal tumor surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate intraoperative blood loss (IBL) and perioperative complications between preoperative embolization (PE) and nonembolization (NE) combined with spinal tumor surgeries as well as to determine the subgroup of spinal tumor surgeries suitable for PE. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE and an additional search by reference lists of the retrieved studies were undertaken by two reviewers. The mean IBL and perioperative complication rate were employed as the effect size in the general quantitative synthesis through direct calculation. Meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) of IBL and the odds ratio (OR) of complications. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: The reviewers selected 17 published studies for the general quantitative synthesis and meta-analyses. The mean IBL of spinal tumor surgeries was 1786.3 mL in the NE group and 1716.4 mL in the PE group. The mean IBL between the two groups was similar. The pooled WMD and SMD of IBL in spinal tumor surgeries was 324.15 mL (95% CI 89.50-1640.9, p = 0.007) and 0.398 (95% CI 0.114-0.682, p = 0.006), respectively. The reduction of the PE group compared with the NE group for the rates of major complications and major hemorrhagic complications were 7.80% and 5.71%, respectively. The risk of PE-related complications in the PE group was only 1.53% more than in the PE group. The pooled OR of major complications in spinal tumor surgeries was 1.426 (95% CI 0.760-2.674; p = 0.269). CONCLUSIONS: PE may be suitable for spinal tumor surgeries and some subgroups. From the perspective of complications, PE may also be a feasible option for spinal tumor surgeries.