We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With and Without an "Access Surgeon": A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Spine 2017 May 16
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of anterior lumber interbody fusion (ALIF) with and without an "access surgeon."
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior approaches for spine operations have become increasingly popular but may often involve unfamiliar anatomy and territory for spine surgeons, potentially placing the patient at risk to a greater proportion of approach-related complications. Thus, many spine surgeons require or prefer the assistance of an "access surgeon" to perform the exposure. However, there has been much debate about the necessity of an "access surgeon."
METHODS: A systematic search of six databases from inception to April 2016 was performed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to pool overall rates, and compare the outcomes of ALIF with an access surgeon and without.
RESULTS: A total of 58 (8028 patients) studies were included in this meta-analysis. The overall intraoperative complications were similar with and without an "access surgeon." The overall pooled rate of arterial injuries [no access 0.44% vs. access 1.16%, odds ratio (OR) 2.67, P < 0.001], retrograde ejaculation (0.41% vs. 0.96%, OR 2.34, P = 0.005), and ileus (1.93% vs. 2.26%, OR 2.45, P < 0.001) was higher with an "access surgeon." However, the overall pooled rates of peritoneal injury (0.44% vs. 0.16%, OR 0.36, P = 0.034) and neurological injury (0.99% vs. 0.11%, OR 0.11, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon." Total postoperative complications (5.95% vs. 4.08%, OR 0.67, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon" along with prosthesis complications (1.59% vs. 0.89%, OR 0.56, P < 0.001) and reoperation rates (2.28% vs. 1.31%, OR 0.57, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Compared with no access surgeon, the use of an access surgeon was associated with similar intraoperative complication rates, higher arterial injuries, retrograde ejaculation, ileus, and lower prosthesis complications, reoperation rates, and postoperative complications. In cases wherein exposure may be difficult, support from an "access surgeon" should be available.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of anterior lumber interbody fusion (ALIF) with and without an "access surgeon."
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior approaches for spine operations have become increasingly popular but may often involve unfamiliar anatomy and territory for spine surgeons, potentially placing the patient at risk to a greater proportion of approach-related complications. Thus, many spine surgeons require or prefer the assistance of an "access surgeon" to perform the exposure. However, there has been much debate about the necessity of an "access surgeon."
METHODS: A systematic search of six databases from inception to April 2016 was performed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to pool overall rates, and compare the outcomes of ALIF with an access surgeon and without.
RESULTS: A total of 58 (8028 patients) studies were included in this meta-analysis. The overall intraoperative complications were similar with and without an "access surgeon." The overall pooled rate of arterial injuries [no access 0.44% vs. access 1.16%, odds ratio (OR) 2.67, P < 0.001], retrograde ejaculation (0.41% vs. 0.96%, OR 2.34, P = 0.005), and ileus (1.93% vs. 2.26%, OR 2.45, P < 0.001) was higher with an "access surgeon." However, the overall pooled rates of peritoneal injury (0.44% vs. 0.16%, OR 0.36, P = 0.034) and neurological injury (0.99% vs. 0.11%, OR 0.11, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon." Total postoperative complications (5.95% vs. 4.08%, OR 0.67, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon" along with prosthesis complications (1.59% vs. 0.89%, OR 0.56, P < 0.001) and reoperation rates (2.28% vs. 1.31%, OR 0.57, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Compared with no access surgeon, the use of an access surgeon was associated with similar intraoperative complication rates, higher arterial injuries, retrograde ejaculation, ileus, and lower prosthesis complications, reoperation rates, and postoperative complications. In cases wherein exposure may be difficult, support from an "access surgeon" should be available.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app