Percutaneous versus open pedicle screw instrumentation in treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background:To assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous short-segment pedicle instrumentation compared with conventionally open short-segment pedicle instrumentation and provide recommendations for using these procedures to treat thoracolumbar fractures.Methods:The Medline database, Cochrane database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trial Register, and Embase were searched for articles published. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared percutaneous short-segment pedicle instrumentation to open short-segment pedicle instrumentation and provided data on safety and clinical effects were included. Demographic characteristics, clinical outcomes, radiological outcomes, and adverse events were manually extracted from all of the selected studies. Methodological quality of included studies using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale and Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias by 2 reviewers independently.Results:Nine studies encompassing 433 patients met the inclusion criteria. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed according to the study design. The pooled results showed there were significant differences between the 2 techniques in short- and long-term visual analog scale, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative draining loss, hospital stay, and incision size, although there were no significant differences in postoperative radiological outcomes, Oswestry Disability Index, hospitalization cost, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, and adverse events.Conclusion:Percutaneous short-segment pedicle instrumentation in cases with achieve satisfactory results, could replace in many cases extensive open surgery and not increased related complications. However, further high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the long-term outcome of patients between 2 techniques.