-
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2022Spinal stenosis (SS) is a multifactorial polyetiological condition characterized by the narrowing of the spinal canal. This condition is a common source of pain among... (Review)
Review
Spinal stenosis (SS) is a multifactorial polyetiological condition characterized by the narrowing of the spinal canal. This condition is a common source of pain among people over 50 years old. We perform a systematic review of molecular and genetic mechanisms that cause SS. The five main mechanisms of SS were found to be ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), hypertrophy and ossification of the ligamentum flavum (HLF/OLF), facet joint (FJ) osteoarthritis, herniation of the intervertebral disc (IVD), and achondroplasia. FJ osteoarthritis, OPLL, and HLF/OLFLF/OLF have all been associated with an over-abundance of transforming growth factor beta and genes related to this phenomenon. OPLL has also been associated with increased bone morphogenetic protein 2. FJ osteoarthritis is additionally associated with Wnt/β-catenin signaling and genes. IVD herniation is associated with collagen type I alpha 1 and 2 gene mutations and subsequent protein dysregulation. Finally, achondroplasia is associated with fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 gene mutations and fibroblast growth factor signaling. Although most publications lack data on a direct relationship between the mutation and SS formation, it is clear that genetics has a direct impact on the formation of any pathology, including SS. Further studies are necessary to understand the genetic and molecular changes associated with SS.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Spinal Stenosis; Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament; Ligamentum Flavum; Achondroplasia; Osteoarthritis
PubMed: 36362274
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232113479 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Nov 2023Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression has gained popularity recently.
BACKGROUND
Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression has gained popularity recently.
AIM
To systematically review the literature of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) aiming to assess outcomes and complications of the different techniques described in literature.
METHODS
On August 7, 2022, Pubmed and EMBASE were searched by 2 reviewers independently, and all the relevant studies published up to date were considered based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subject headings "unilateral laminotomy", "bilateral decompression" and their related key terms were used. The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used to screen the articles.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies including 371 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 69.0 years (range: 55-83 years). The follow up duration ranged from 1 to 3 years. Rate of postoperative pain and functional improvement was favorable based on VAS, JOA, JOABPEQ, RMDW, ODI and SF-36, for example improved from a range of 4.2-7.5 preoperatively on the VAS score to a range of 1.4-3.0 postoperatively at the final follow up. Insufficient decompression was noted in 3% of the reported cases. The overall complication rate was reported at 18-20%, with dural tear at 3.6-9% and hematoma at 0-4%.
CONCLUSION
Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression has favorable short- and mid-term pain and functional outcomes with low recurrence and complication rates. This, however, needs to be further confirmed in larger, long-term follow-up, prospective, comparative studies between open, and minimally invasive techniques.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Middle Aged; Decompression, Surgical; Laminectomy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Canal; Spinal Stenosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37990183
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-07033-1 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2021Chronic Low Back Pain (LBP) is a symptom that may be caused by several diseases, and it is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide. The increased amount of... (Review)
Review
Chronic Low Back Pain (LBP) is a symptom that may be caused by several diseases, and it is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide. The increased amount of digital images in orthopaedics has led to the development of methods related to artificial intelligence, and to computer vision in particular, which aim to improve diagnosis and treatment of LBP. In this manuscript, we have systematically reviewed the available literature on the use of computer vision in the diagnosis and treatment of LBP. A systematic research of PubMed electronic database was performed. The search strategy was set as the combinations of the following keywords: "Artificial Intelligence", "Feature Extraction", "Segmentation", "Computer Vision", "Machine Learning", "Deep Learning", "Neural Network", "Low Back Pain", "Lumbar". Results: The search returned a total of 558 articles. After careful evaluation of the abstracts, 358 were excluded, whereas 124 papers were excluded after full-text examination, taking the number of eligible articles to 76. The main applications of computer vision in LBP include feature extraction and segmentation, which are usually followed by further tasks. Most recent methods use deep learning models rather than digital image processing techniques. The best performing methods for segmentation of vertebrae, intervertebral discs, spinal canal and lumbar muscles achieve Sørensen-Dice scores greater than 90%, whereas studies focusing on localization and identification of structures collectively showed an accuracy greater than 80%. Future advances in artificial intelligence are expected to increase systems' autonomy and reliability, thus providing even more effective tools for the diagnosis and treatment of LBP.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Computers; Humans; Intervertebral Disc; Low Back Pain; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 34682647
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182010909 -
Global Spine Journal Jul 2022Systematic review and meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Indications for surgical decompression of gunshot wounds to the lumbosacral spine are controversial and based on limited data.
METHODS
A systematic review of literature was conducted to identify studies that directly compare neurologic outcomes following operative and non-operative management of gunshot wounds to the lumbosacral spine. Studies were evaluated for degree of neurologic improvement, complications, and antibiotic usage. An odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated for dichotomous outcomes which were then pooled by random-effects model meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five studies were included that met inclusion criteria. The total rate of neurologic improvement was 72.3% following surgical intervention and 61.7% following non-operative intervention. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out which failed to show a statistically significant difference in the rate of neurologic improvement between surgical and non-operative intervention (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.45, 2.53; = 0.88). In civilian only studies, a random-effects model meta-analysis failed to show a statistically significant difference in the rate of neurologic improvement between surgical and non-operative intervention (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.21, 2.72; = 0.66). Meta-analysis further failed to show a statistically significant difference in the rate of neurologic improvement between patients with either complete (OR 4.13; 95% CI 0.55, 30.80; = 0.17) or incomplete (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.10, 1.52; = 0.17) neurologic injuries who underwent surgical and non-operative intervention. There were no significant differences in the number of infections and other complications between patients who underwent surgical and non-operative intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of neurologic improvement between those who underwent surgical or non-operative intervention. Further research is necessary to determine if surgical intervention for gunshot wounds to the lumbosacral spine, including in the case of retained bullet within the spinal canal, is efficacious.
PubMed: 34275384
DOI: 10.1177/21925682211030873 -
Pain Physician Feb 2016Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain is frustrating to treat. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy are techniques which can treat chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain is frustrating to treat. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy are techniques which can treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.Percutaneous adhesiolysis is performed by placing the catheter into the tissue plane at the ventrolateral aspect of the foramen so that medications can be injected. Adhesiolysis is used both for pain caused by scarring which is not resistant to catheter placement and other sources of pain, including inflammation in the absence of scarring.Mechanical lysis of scars with a catheter may or may not be necessary for percutaneous adhesiolysis to be effective. Spinal endoscopy allows direct visualization of the epidural space and has the possibility to use laser energy to treat pathology.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.
METHODS
The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in treating persistent low back and leg pain was reviewed. The quality of each article used in this analysis was assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale from strong, based upon multiple randomized controlled trials to weak, based upon consensus, as developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by ASIPP. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Pain relief of at least 50% and functional improvement of at least 40% were the primary outcome measures. Short-term efficacy was defined as improvement of 6 months or less; whereas, long-term efficacy was defined more than 6 months.
RESULTS
For this systematic review, 45 studies were identified. Of these, for percutaneous adhesiolysis there were 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 observational studies which met the inclusion criteria. For spinal endoscopy, there was one randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. Based upon 7 randomized controlled trials showing efficacy, with no negative trials, there is Level I or strong evidence of the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Based upon one high-quality randomized controlled trial, there is Level II to III evidence supporting the use of spinal endoscopy in treating chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.
CONCLUSION
The evidence is Level I or strong that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Percutaneous adhesiolysis may be considered as a first-line treatment for chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. The evidence is Level II to III that spinal endoscopy is effective in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.
KEY WORDS
Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, post lumbar surgery syndrome, epidural scarring, adhesiolysis, endoscopy, radicular pain.
Topics: Analgesics; Catheterization; Chronic Disease; Endoscopy; Epidural Space; Humans; Low Back Pain; Lower Extremity; Lumbosacral Region; Pain Management
PubMed: 26815254
DOI: No ID Found -
Global Spine Journal Aug 2017Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Current surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) involves decompression of the spinal canal followed by fusion with or without interbody. The additional functional and operative benefits derived from interbody inclusion has yet to be thoroughly established with a number of recent studies producing conflicting results. Thus, we aim to compare the functional and operative outcomes after fusion against interbody fusion in the treatment of DS.
METHODS
This systematic review of the literature comparing posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) outcomes in the treatment of DS was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic searches of 6 databases yielded 386 articles from database inception to July 2016, which were screening against established criteria for inclusion into this study.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies, satisfied criteria and reported outcomes for 721 patients. Fusion alone was performed in 458 (63.5%) patients and interbody fusion was performed in 263 (36.5%) patients. Functional outcomes Oswestry Disability Index ( = .29) and visual analog scale ( = .13) were not statistically different between the 2 approaches. Furthermore, there was no significant inferiority between fusion alone and with interbody in terms of the operative outcomes of blood loss ( = .38), reoperation rate ( = .66), hospital stay ( = .96), complication rate ( = .78), or fusion rate ( = .15).
CONCLUSIONS
There was no statistically significant difference in functional and operative outcomes following fusion alone versus with interbody. Additional subgroup analysis of intrinsic DS features in future large, prospective, randomized controlled trials will improve the validity of these findings.
PubMed: 28811993
DOI: 10.1177/2192568217701103 -
Neurospine Sep 2023Cervical myelopathy (CM) describes the compressive cervical spinal cord state, often accompanied by serious clinical condition, by herniated disc or hypertrophied spurs...
Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Cervical myelopathy (CM) describes the compressive cervical spinal cord state, often accompanied by serious clinical condition, by herniated disc or hypertrophied spurs or ligament. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been frequently employed as conventional surgical solution for this CM despite its inherent biomechanical handicap. Alternatively, an artificial disc replacement (ADR) preserves cervical motion while still decompressing the spinal canal and neural foramen. This analysis elaborated to clarify the potential benefits of ADR application to CM over ACDF from the conglomerated results of the past references.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane review, and KMbase databases from the studies published until March 2023. Six studies (3 randomized controlled study [RCTs] and 3 non-RCTs) were included in a qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Data were extracted and analyzed using a random effects model to obtain effect size and its statistical significance. Quality assessment and evidence level were established in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.
RESULTS
Among 6 studies, 2 studies showed that ADR group achieved significantly better clinical improvement than the ACDF group, while the rest 4 studies revealed no significant difference. A meta-analysis showed better clinical outcomes with or without statistical significance. The level of evidence was low because of inconsistency and imprecision.
CONCLUSION
ADR was superior or at least, not inferior to ACDF in terms of functional recovery. However, its application to the CM patients is merely empowered with weak strength due to low level of evidence.
PubMed: 37798997
DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346498.249 -
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal... Jul 2019To assess complications after minimally invasive spinal surgeries including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) by reviewing the most recent literature. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To assess complications after minimally invasive spinal surgeries including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) by reviewing the most recent literature.
RECENT FINDINGS
Current literature demonstrates that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in spine has improved clinical outcomes and reduced complications when compared with open spinal procedures. Recent studies describing MI-TLIF primarily for degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, and vertebral canal stenosis cite over 89 discrete complications, with the most common being radiculitis (ranging from 2.8 to 57.1%), screw malposition (0.3-12.7%), and incidental durotomy (0.3-8.6%). Minimally invasive spine surgery has a distinct set of complications in comparison with other spinal procedures. These complications vary based on the exact MIS procedure and indication. The most frequently documented MI-TLIF complications in current published literature were radiculitis, screw malposition, and incidental durotomy.
PubMed: 31302861
DOI: 10.1007/s12178-019-09574-2 -
Medicine Aug 2019Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is caused by neural compression due to narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal or neural foramen. Surgical intervention is a standard treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is caused by neural compression due to narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal or neural foramen. Surgical intervention is a standard treatment for LSS; however, the steep increase in the surgical rate, post-operative complications, and comparatively low long-term satisfaction are considered to be limitations of this surgical approach. Conversely, acupotomy is a minimally invasive technique that combines the effects of conventional acupuncture with micro-incision, which may offer an alternative to surgery for the treatment of LSS. This review was conducted to investigate and critically review the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of acupotomy for LSS.
METHODS
Eleven databases were searched from their respective inception dates to December 28, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupotomy and wait-list, sham treatment, or active controls were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs were included in this review and meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor. The acupotomy treatment group was associated with significantly lower visual analogue scale scores (range 0∼10) (5 RCTs; mean difference [MD] -1.55, 95% confidence interval [CIs] -2.60 to -0.50; I = 94%) and higher Japanese Orthopedic Association Score (3 RCTs; MD 4.70, 95% CI 3.73 to 5.68; I = 0%) compared to the active control group. In subgroup analysis based on the type of active controls, acupotomy retained significant benefits over lumbar traction and acupuncture, as well as over lumbar traction, spinal decompression, and acupuncture. Safety data were reported in only 1 study, and no adverse events occurred in either the acupotomy or the acupuncture control group.
CONCLUSION
According to current evidence, acupotomy might be beneficial for treating LSS. Acupotomy showed consistent superiority over lumbar traction, but the results were mixed in comparisons with other interventions, such as spinal decompression and acupuncture. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the poor methodological quality of the included studies, and potential small-study effects. Further larger, high-quality, rigorous RCTs should be conducted on this topic and rigorous reporting of acupotomy procedures and safety data should be encouraged.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Humans; Lumbosacral Region; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 31393365
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016662 -
PloS One 2018Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition related to aging in which structural changes cause narrowing of the central canal and intervertebral foramen. It is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition related to aging in which structural changes cause narrowing of the central canal and intervertebral foramen. It is currently the leading cause for spinal surgery in patients over 65 years. Interspinous process devices (IPDs) were introduced as a less invasive surgical alternative, but questions regarding safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness are still unanswered.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to provide complete and reliable information regarding benefits and harms of IPDs when compared to conservative treatment or decompression surgery and suggest directions for forthcoming RCTs.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and LILACS for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, without language or period restrictions, comparing IPDs to conservative treatment or decompressive surgery in adults with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spine stenosis. Data extraction and analysis were conducted following the Cochrane Handbook. Primary outcomes were pain assessment, functional impairment, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, complications, and cost-effectiveness. This systematic review was registered at Prospero (International prospective register of systematic reviews) under number 42015023604.
RESULTS
The search strategy resulted in 17 potentially eligible reports. At the end, nine reports were included and eight were excluded. Overall quality of evidence was low. One trial compared IPDs to conservative treatment: IPDs presented better pain, functional status, quality of life outcomes, and higher complication risk. Five trials compared IPDs to decompressive surgery: pain, functional status, and quality of life had similar outcomes. IPD implant presented a significantly higher risk of reoperation. We found low-quality evidence that IPDs resulted in similar outcomes when compared to standard decompression surgery. Primary and secondary outcomes were not measured in all studies and were often published in incomplete form. Subgroup analysis was not feasible. Difficulty in contacting authors may have prevented us of including data in quantitative analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients submitted to IPD implants had significantly higher rates of reoperation, with lower cost-effectiveness. Future trials should improve in design quality and data reporting, with longer follow-up periods.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Decompression, Surgical; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Publication Bias; Spinal Stenosis; Surgical Fixation Devices; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29979691
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199623