CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较经皮穿刺与传统开放椎弓根螺钉内固定技术治疗胸腰椎骨折的疗效及安全性。方法采用 Cochrane 系统评价方法，计算机检索 PUBMED、OVID 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 外文数据库，符合入选标准的文献由2名评价者独立筛选及评估，采用 RevMan5．2．6软件进行 Meta 分析。结果7篇文献（共353例患者）被纳入分析，结果显示经皮穿刺较传统开放椎弓根螺钉内固定技术治疗胸腰椎骨折术中失血量（RR＝1．89，95％CI ：1．55～2．29）和手术时间（RR＝1．21，95％CI ：1．12～1．30）比较，差异有统计学意义（P ＜0．05），且经皮穿刺组矫正矢状后凸角、改善椎体前缘高度与传统开放组比较，差异无统计学意义（P ＞0．05）。结论经皮穿刺及传统开放椎弓根螺钉内固定技术都是安全有效的治疗胸腰椎骨折的内固定方法，但是经皮穿刺相对于传统开放椎弓根螺钉内固定技术创伤更小、失血更少、手术时间更短。
목적：비교경피천자여전통개방추궁근라정내고정기술치료흉요추골절적료효급안전성。방법채용 Cochrane 계통평개방법，계산궤검색 PUBMED、OVID 화 Cochrane CENTRAL 외문수거고，부합입선표준적문헌유2명평개자독립사선급평고，채용 RevMan5．2．6연건진행 Meta 분석。결과7편문헌（공353례환자）피납입분석，결과현시경피천자교전통개방추궁근라정내고정기술치료흉요추골절술중실혈량（RR＝1．89，95％CI ：1．55～2．29）화수술시간（RR＝1．21，95％CI ：1．12～1．30）비교，차이유통계학의의（P ＜0．05），차경피천자조교정시상후철각、개선추체전연고도여전통개방조비교，차이무통계학의의（P ＞0．05）。결론경피천자급전통개방추궁근라정내고정기술도시안전유효적치료흉요추골절적내고정방법，단시경피천자상대우전통개방추궁근라정내고정기술창상경소、실혈경소、수술시간경단。
Objective To compare the feasibility and efficacy of PPSF with OPSF for thoracolumbar fractures.Methods We searched the PUBMED,OVID and Cochrane CENTRAL databases through Jan 2014.All of the clinical trials included were extrac-ted and evaluated by two reviewers independently.Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.2.6 software by the Cochrane Collabora-tion.Results Seven studies including 353 patients met the inclusion criteria.The Meta analysis found there were significant differ-ences between the two procedures in intraoperation blood loss (RR = 1.89,95%CI :1.55 - 2.29,P < 0.05)and operation time (RR=1.21,95%CI :1.12-1.30,P <0.05).For the correction of sagittal Cobb′s angle and the anterior vertebral body height,a-nalysis did not find any significant difference between the PPSF and OPSF(P >0.05).Conclusion Both PPSF and OPSF are safe and efficacious internal fixation methods for treating thoracolumbar fractures,while,PPSF may cause less blood loss and cost less time.