This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A computer search for the published literature on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and other databases was performed, from which 522 related articles were retrieved and 13 were finally included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and analyzed them using RevMan 5.4. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane systematic analysis and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis showed that the blood loss [95% confidence intervals (CI) (− 121.01, − 54.56), $$P<0.001$$P < 0.001 ], hospital stay [95% CI (− 1.98, − 0.85), $$P<0.001$$P < 0.001 ], postoperative fusion rate [95%CI (1.04, 3.60), $$P=0.04$$P = 0.04 ], postoperative disc height [95% CI (0.50, 3.63), $$P=0.01$$P = 0.01 ], and postoperative foraminal height [95% CI (0.96, 4.13), $$P=0.002$$P = 0.002 ] were all better in the OLIF group; however, the complication rates were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF group [95% CI (1.01, 2.06), $$P=0.04$$P = 0.04 ]. However, there were no significant differences between the two in terms of surgery time, patient satisfaction, or postoperative functional scores. The OLIF group had the advantages of lower blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, a higher postoperative fusion rate, and better recovery of the disc and foraminal heights, whereas MIS-TLIF had a relatively lower complication rate.

Purpose: This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) and InterTan Nail in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Given the high incidence of femoral intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly population and its impact on quality of life, choosing the most effective and safest surgical option is crucial. PFNA and InterTan are currently two commonly used techniques, but there is a lack of systematic evaluation comparing their safety and effectiveness. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap through Meta-analysis, providing clinicians with evidence-based treatment recommendations.Materials and methods: A computer search was used to search for published literature on PFNA and InterTan in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Cinahl, CBM, and CNKI.A total of 853 related literatures were retrieved, and 15 literatures were finally included. Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale and Cochrane systematic review methodologies were used to assess the quality of the literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software, following data extraction.Results: The comparison found that during the surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures, the operation time, fluoroscopy time, and blood loss in the PFNA group were significantly shorter than those in the InterTan group, and the difference was statistically significant. In terms of postoperative complication rates, the InterTan group had a significant advantage over the PFNA group. Shaft fracture, varus collapse, cut out, screw migration, and pain of hip and thigh were the most likely to occur in the PFNA group, and the differences were all statistically significant. In terms of postoperative efficacy, the results of the PFNA group and the InterTan group were comparable, and there was no significant differences.Conclusions: When selecting surgical techniques for the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures, it is necessary to conduct individualized assessments based on the patient’s overall health status, surgical tolerance, and post-operative recovery needs. For patients who cannot tolerate long-term surgery or are in poor physical condition, PFNA may be more appropriate. While for patients who can tolerate long-term surgery or have more complex conditions, InterTan may be more suitable.

Introduction: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the differences in postoperative efficacy between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Materials and methods: Strictly based on the search strategy, we searched the published papers on OLIF and TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. A total of 607 related papers were retrieved, and 15 articles were finally included. The quality of the papers was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology, and the data were extracted and meta-analyzed using Review manager 5.4 software. Results: Through comparison, it was found that in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, the OLIF group had certain advantages over the TLIF group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segmental lordosis (FSL), and cage height, and the differences were statistically significant. The results were similar in terms of surgery time, complications, fusion rate, VAS for back pain (VAS-BP) and various sagittal imaging indicators, and there was no significant difference. Conclusions: OLIF and TLIF can relieve low back pain symptoms in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but OLIF has certain advantages in terms of ODI and VAS-LP. In addition, OLIF has the advantages of minor intraoperative trauma and quick postoperative recovery.

The incidence of lumbar spinal stenosis is increasing annually, and with an ever‑aging population and longer life expectancies, this trend will further continue. It is hoped that a more effective treatment can be found so that the patients can be relieved of their pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta‑analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery (UBE) and microscopic decompression surgery (MD) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. A literature search of related studies published until April 2022 was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and other databases. After filtering of references, 12 eligible studies were identified that compared UBE with MD as a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Data were extracted and analysed using R. A total of 12 articles (four randomized controlled and eight cohort studies) were included, with a total of 1,067 patients: 250 men and 249 women in the UBE group and 290 men and 278 women in the MD group. The meta-analysis showed that the mean intraoperative blood loss in the UBE group [standardized mean difference (SMD)=‑2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) (‑3.97, ‑0.23), P=0.03] was lower than that in the MD group. The postoperative Visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back pain [SMD=‑0.52, 95% CI (‑0.76, ‑0.27), P<0.01], leg pain [SMD=‑0.30, 95% CI (‑0.51, ‑0.08), P<0.01], postoperative Oswestry disability index [(ODI); SMD=‑0.25, 95% CI (‑0.48, ‑0.03), P=0.03], and postoperative C‑reactive protein [(CRP); odds ratio (OR)=‑0.92, 95% CI (‑1.80, 0.03), P=0.04] were lower than those in the MD group. Complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI (0.37, 0.98), P=0.04) and hospital stay (SMD=‑1.84, 95% CI (‑2.85, 0.83), P <0.01] were also lesser in the UBE group than in the MD group. UBE was preferable to that in the MD group according to the modified MacNab score [OR=2.28, 95% CI (1.28, 4.06), P<0.01]. No significant differences were observed in the operation times between the groups. UBE surgery was found to be a better option for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis than MD surgery.