Comparative Efficacy of Clinical Interventions for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Network Metaanalysis With Preliminary Design of Treatment Algorithm

Yanting Liu,Siravich Suvithayasiri,김진성 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.3

Objective: We aimed to identify the most effective clinical treatment method for sacroiliac joint (SIJ)-related pain based on the systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the comparative efficacy of clinical interventions for sacroiliac joint pain by pooling the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Our team conducted a systematic review and NMA of RCTs to determine the most effective clinical treatment for SIJ-related pain. We searched the PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for RCTs until February 2023. The PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines were followed. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model. Results: Based on the search strategy and inclusion criteria, our systematic review and NMA included 9 randomized studies with 652 participants. Research has mainly focused on various radiofrequency sources, but their number is still low. In the network analysis, according to the NMA and mean ranking probabilities for the improvement of pain intensity (PI) and quality of life (QoL), sacroiliac joint fusion and cooled radiofrequency were associated with high treatment rank for improving PI and QoL in patients with sacroiliac joint pain. Conclusion: This NMA suggest that SIJ fusion and cooled radiofrequency could be potential options for improving the QoL and relieving pain in patients with SIJ-related pain. Comparison studies of outcomes between these 2 procedures with solid methodology and a low risk of bias would be very beneficial to identify the optimal treatment option for this challenging disease.

Commentary on “Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies”

Yanting Liu,Siravich Suvithayasiri,김진성 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.2

.

Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Preliminary Analysis of L5–S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation Outcomes in Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials

Yanting Liu,김영진,박찬웅,Siravich Suvithayasiri,Khanathip Jitpakdee,김진성 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.4

Objective: A preliminary report from a single institution, noninferiority, prospective randomized controlled trial is conducted to determine the effectiveness of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) versus microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) for the treatment of L5–S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods: This prospective, noncrossover, randomized controlled trials was conducted at a single neurosurgical center. Patients with symptomatic radiculopathy or intermittent neurogenic claudication caused by LDH were enrolled from July 2016 to July 2021. The study compared the effectiveness of microscopic and full-endoscopic discectomy procedures. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores, radiologic measurements, endurance time of walking, and satisfaction rate. Results: Of 37 assessed patients, both IELD and MLD groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores for pain over time, with no significant difference between them. For secondary outcomes, the IELD group had a shorter hospital stay and reduced blood loss but a longer operation time than the MLD group. Radiographic evaluations showed no change compared to preoperative data. Patient satisfaction and recovery rates were slightly higher for the MLD group, but both groups were comparable in most evaluations, with complications being minimal. Conclusion: The IELD was noninferior in improving the intensity of back and leg pain and functional disability, compared to the MLD. Additionally, the IELD showed no difference in clinical outcomes for patients in terms of radiographic results and patient satisfaction rates. The results of this research preliminarily demonstrate that the IELD could be considered an effective alternative to MLD for L5–S1 central or paracentral LDH.

Comparative Efficacy of Surgical Interventions for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Yanting Liu,Jin Liu,Siravich Suvithayasiri,한인보,김진성 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.4

Objective: We aimed to comprehensively compare surgical methods for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) using systematic review and network meta-analysis to understand their effectiveness and outcomes, as current research provides limited overviews. Methods: We followed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines, preregistering our protocol with PROSPERO. We analyzed Englishpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with OVCFs that evaluated pain intensity or functionality using tools like visual analogue scale (VAS) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Exclusions included non-RCTs, malignancy-related fractures, and certain interventions. Using the RoB 2 tool, we assessed bias and visualized results with Robvis. Our primary outcome was pain intensity, with secondary outcomes including disability, new fractures, and cement leakage. Results were synthesized using Stata/MP. Results: Thirty-four RCTs from 10 countries, totaling 4,384 patients, were analyzed. Shortterm VAS indicated kyphoplasty with facet joint injection (KIJ) as the top treatment at 87.7%, while unipedicular kyphoplasty (UKP) led to long-term at 74.9%. Short-term ODI favored vertebroplasty with facet joint injection (VIJ) at 98.4%, with kyphoplasty (KP) leading longterm at 66.0%. All surgical techniques were superior to conservative treatment. Vertebral augmentation devices reported the fewest new fractures and curved vertebroplasty had the least cement leakage. SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) analyses suggested UKP and VIJ as top choices for postoperative pain relief, with VIJ excelling in postoperative disability improvement. Conclusion: Our analysis evaluates 12 OVCF interventions, underscoring KIJ for short-term pain relief and VIJ and UKP for long-term efficacy. Notably, VIJ stands out in disability outcomes, emphasizing the need for comprehensive OVCF management.

A 30-Year Worldwide Research Productivity of Scientific Publication in Full-Endoscopic Decompression Spine Surgery: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

Yanting Liu,Vit Kotheeranurak,Javier Quillo-Olvera,Van Isseldyk Facundo,Sagar Sharma,Siravich Suvithayasiri,Khanathip Jitpakdee,Guang-Xun Lin,Akaworn Mahatthanatrakul,Hussam Jabri,Ashwinkumar Vasant K 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.1

Objective: The ever-growing number of articles related to full-endoscopic spine surgery published in the last few decades presents a challenge which is perplexing and time-consuming in identifying the current research status. The study aims to identify and analyze the most cited works related to full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery, compare the articles published by different publishers and area, and show the current publication status of full-endoscopic research. Methods: Using Bibliometrix, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer, we analyzed the bibliometric data selected from the Web of Science database between 1992 and 2022. Spine has the highest H-index with the most-cited journal in the field of full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery. China ranked as the most productive country, whereas the most cited with high H-index papers came from South Korea. For the author analysis, Yeung AT, Ruetten S, Hoogland T, Ahn Y, Choi G, and Mayer HM were the most impactful authors in the global and local citations. The most productive organization is Wooridul Spine Hospital. Conclusion: The bibliometric study showed a growing trend of research on full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery over the past 30 years. It has demonstrated that there is a significant increase in the number of authors, institutions, and internationally collaborated countries. However, the quality of studies is still low, and the lack of high-quality clinical evidence and the trend of general journal submissions has somewhat affected the quality of endoscopy journals in recent years.