Is there a difference in the outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion among female patients with different menopausal statuses?

The association between menopausal status and clinical outcomes of female patients with carpal tunnel release: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The relationship between menopausal status and clinical outcomes of female patients with carpal tunnel release (CTR) has been not clearly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of CTR among women with different menopausal statuses.

METHODS

Two hundred-eighteen consecutive female patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) who underwent surgery at our hospital between May 2016 and May 2020 were included in this study. Based on whether subjects had undergone menopause before surgery, they were divided into three groups: the premenopausal group, the early postmenopausal group (less than 10 years since menopause) and the late postmenopausal group (more than 10 years since menopause). The clinical outcome was assessed before surgery and at six-month postoperative visits using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ).

RESULTS

There were 86 patients in the premenopausal group, 70 patients in the early postmenopausal group and 62 patients in the late postmenopausal group. All the groups showed significant improvements in their Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) compared with preoperative scores. Although, there was a significant difference between the groups based and post-surgical SSS and FSS (p < 0.05). Patients in the postmenopausal group had less improvement in SSS and FSS in comparison with those in the other groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that all the groups had significant improvement in their SSS and FSS. However, the clinical outcomes were poorer in late postmenopausal patients than in premenopausal or early postmenopausal patients. These findings can be used in pre-operative counseling and interpretation of outcomes in women with CTR.

Efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34-59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = -2.55, 95% CI: - 3.25 to - 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = - 4.30, 95% CI: - 5.61 to - 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2-9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = - 3.22, 95% CI: - 5.21 to - 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI: - 2.67to - 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.96).

CONCLUSION

PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.