摘要
目的使用Meta分析的方法评价神经内镜辅助的微血管减压术(EA-MVD)与显微镜下微血管减压术(M-MVD)的安全性及有效性。方法采用计算机检索1992年1月—2018年1月EMBase、Medline、Cochran图书馆、维普、CNKI、万方等数据库,以检索有关EA-MVD与M-MVD的研究。应用RevMan5.3软件对符合纳入标准的研究进行Meta分析。结果共纳入11个研究,总计患者1040例。Meta分析显示:两组患者手术时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.88)。M-MVD组术后并发症发生率、术后1年复发率高于EA-MVD组,而术后治愈率、术后1年治愈率低于EA-MVD组,OR合并值(95%CI)分别为2.75(1.99~3.81)、9.10(2.41~34.33)、0.38(0.26~0.55)、0.36(0.20~0.64),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论EA-MVD与M-MVD相比,术后总并发症更少,安全性更高,有效性具有明显优势,手术效果更好。
Objectives To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endoscope-assisted and microscopy microvascular decompression( EA-MVD and M-MVD) using meta-analysis. Methods Following the principle of evidence-based medicine, we searched databases( e.g., EMBase, Medline, Cochrane library, VIP, CNKI, Wan Fang) for studies of endoscope-assisted and microscopy microvascular decompression from January 1992 to January 2018. Studies that met the inclusion standard were meta-analyzed in RevMan 5.3. Results A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total sample of 1 040 patients. There was no significant difference in the operation time between the two groups( P=0.88). The occurrence of postoperative complications and one-year recurrence rate in the M-MVD group were higher than those in the EA-MVD group while the overall postoperative recovery rate and the one-year postoperative recovery rate in the M-MVD group were lower than those in the EA-MVD group. The OR combined values were 2.75( 1.99-3.81), 9.10( 2.41-34.33), 0.38( 0.26- 0.55), 0.36( 0.20-0.64), and the difference was statistically significant( P< 0.05). Conclusions Compared with M-MVD, EA-MVD is safer, more effective with a lower postoperative complication rate.
作者
解利平
冯磊
林涛
张海平
束坤
苏龙
Xie Liping;Feng Lei;Lin Tao;Zhang Haiping;Shu Kun;Su Long(Department of Neurosurgery, Xidian Group Hospital, Xi'an 710077, China)
出处
《神经疾病与精神卫生》
2019年第2期152-156,共5页
Journal of Neuroscience and Mental Health
关键词
神经内镜显微镜微血管减压
META
分析
Neuroendoscopy
Microscopy
Microvascular deconipression
Meta-analysis
