British journal of neurosurgery
-
Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - systematic review and meta-analysis.
To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). ⋯ ALIF and TLIF appear to have similar success and clinical outcomes, with different complication profiles. ALIF may be associated with superior restoration of disk height and lordosis, but requires further validation in future studies.
-
Review Meta Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgeries performed for treating deep-seated cerebral cavernous malformations.
The clinical benefit of surgery for treatment of deep-seated cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs) is still a matter of debate. Although the surgical removal of CCMs is widely accepted, the benefits of reducing the rate of haemorrhage must be balanced against the risk of peri-operative morbidity. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical benefits of surgery for treating deeply localised CCMs. ⋯ Our meta-analysis demonstrates post-surgical haemorrhage rate and complications related to surgeries on deep-seated CCMs. The post-surgical haemorrhage rate was low with a relatively high rate of post-surgical complications.
-
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Endovascular coiling vs. surgical clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysm: A meta-analysis.
With increasing use of high-resolution imaging of brain, unruptured aneurysms are more and more frequently detected. With the advances in treatment techniques, an increasing number of aneurysms are now occluded using endovascular coiling instead of conventional surgical clipping. However, the better modality for unruptured intracranial aneurysm has been poorly understood. ⋯ We suggest that endovascular coiling and surgical clipping bear similar risk ratios of death, bleeding, cerebral ischemia, occlusion of aneurysm, and independence in daily activities and encourage further studies on quality of life and cognitive outcome. However, albeit the results in this meta-analysis are robust, due to great clinical heterogeneity and low quality of studies, the results in this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.