Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare the maternal and obstetric health outcomes between pregnant AIS patients treated surgically (AIS surgery), pregnant AIS patients treated conservatively (AIS conservative), and pregnant healthy controls.</p> Methods <p>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42023439219). PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were searched for relevant studies. The risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi2 and I2 tests. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used based on heterogeneity results.</p> Results <p>Nine studies involving 4718 women were included. The frequency of caesarean section was higher in the AIS surgery group than in the healthy controls (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.99), but not compared to the AIS conservative group (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69). Patients in the AIS surgery group were more likely to receive general anesthesia during caesarean section than were healthy controls (RR 11.69, 95% CI 3.03 45.13). Patients in the AIS surgery group reported more back pain during pregnancy than healthy controls (RR 4.02, 95% CI 1.20 to 13.49), but not compared to the AIS conservative group (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 1.15). The AIS surgery group had worse scores on the SRS-22 pain and function domains than the healthy controls. There were no differences in marital status or the number of children between the groups.</p> Conclusion <p>Pregnant AIS patients treated surgically may have a higher risk of caesarean section and more back pain during pregnancy compared to healthy controls. The AIS surgery group also had worse scores on the SRS-22 pain and function domains than the healthy controls. However, there were no differences in marital status or number of children between the groups.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Impact of surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis on maternal and obstetric outcomes: a meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月24日

查看全文
  • Eduardo Hevia,
  • Jesús Burgos,
  • Ignacio Sanpera,
  • Vicente García,
  • María Teresa de Santos Moreno,
  • Gonzalo Mariscal,
  • Carlos Barrios

摘要

Purpose

To compare the maternal and obstetric health outcomes between pregnant AIS patients treated surgically (AIS surgery), pregnant AIS patients treated conservatively (AIS conservative), and pregnant healthy controls.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42023439219). PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were searched for relevant studies. The risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi2 and I2 tests. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used based on heterogeneity results.

Results

Nine studies involving 4718 women were included. The frequency of caesarean section was higher in the AIS surgery group than in the healthy controls (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.99), but not compared to the AIS conservative group (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69). Patients in the AIS surgery group were more likely to receive general anesthesia during caesarean section than were healthy controls (RR 11.69, 95% CI 3.03 45.13). Patients in the AIS surgery group reported more back pain during pregnancy than healthy controls (RR 4.02, 95% CI 1.20 to 13.49), but not compared to the AIS conservative group (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 1.15). The AIS surgery group had worse scores on the SRS-22 pain and function domains than the healthy controls. There were no differences in marital status or the number of children between the groups.

Conclusion

Pregnant AIS patients treated surgically may have a higher risk of caesarean section and more back pain during pregnancy compared to healthy controls. The AIS surgery group also had worse scores on the SRS-22 pain and function domains than the healthy controls. However, there were no differences in marital status or number of children between the groups.