-
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma... Sep 2023Lumbar disc herniation in obese individuals poses unique surgical challenges which can influence outcomes in such patients. Limited studies are available evaluating the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Lumbar disc herniation in obese individuals poses unique surgical challenges which can influence outcomes in such patients. Limited studies are available evaluating the results of discectomy in obese persons. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes in obese and non-obese individuals; and to analyse whether approach to surgery had a bearing on these outcomes.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted on four databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and PRISMA guidelines were followed. After screening by the authors, eight studies were shortlisted from which data were extracted and analysed. Comparative analysis was done for lumbar discectomy (microdiscectomy or minimally invasive vs. endoscopic technique) between obese and non-obese groups from the six comparative studies in our review. Pooled estimates and subgroup analysis was done to ascertain the effect of surgical approach on outcomes.
RESULTS
Eight studies published between 2007 and 2021 were included. Mean age of study cohort was 39.05 years. Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the non-obese group mean difference of 15.1 min (95% CI - 0.24 to 30.5). On subgroup analysis, obese individuals operated via endoscopic approach had significantly decreased operative time as compared to open approach. Blood loss and complication rates were also lower in the non-obese groups, but not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Significantly less mean operative time was seen in non-obese individuals and when obese patients were operated via endoscopic approach. This difference between obese and non-obese groups was significantly more in the open subgroup as compared to the endoscopic subgroup. No significant differences in blood loss, mean improvement in VAS score, recurrence rate, complication rate and length of hospital stay was found between obese and non-obese patients as well as between endoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy within the obese subgroup. The learning curve associated with endoscopy makes it a challenging procedure.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Endoscopy; Length of Stay; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37041263
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-023-04870-6 -
Spine Apr 2024A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and comparative retrospective cohort studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and comparative retrospective cohort studies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to compare the 10-year outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
ACDF is the gold standard for the treatment of CDDD. However, the loss of motion at the operative level may accelerate adjacent segment disease (ASD). The preservation of motion with CDA attempts to prevent this complication of cervical fusion. Short-term and mid-term data reveal comparable results for CDA versus ACDF; however, long-term results are unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to determine if CDA had improved outcomes compared with ACDF at 10-year follow-up. PubMed and Web of Science database searches through 2023 were performed to identify randomized controlled trials and comparative retrospective cohort studies involving treatment of one-level or two-level CDDD.
RESULTS
Six studies were eligible for analysis. CDA had significantly improved neck disability index and visual analog scale scores but lower Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores compared to ACDF at 10-year follow-up ( P < 0.05). None of these results met minimal clinically important differences. CDA had significantly fewer secondary surgeries and adverse events compared to ACDF ( P <0.05). There were no significant differences in neurological success.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors found that significantly fewer secondary surgeries and adverse events were seen after CDA than after ACDF at 10-year follow-up. CDA had statistically, but not clinically, improved neck disability index and visual analog scale scores but lower Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores in comparison to ACDF. CDA was not significantly different from ACDF in terms of a successful neurological outcome.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Diskectomy; Neck; Cervical Vertebrae; Arthroplasty; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38018778
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004887 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Mar 2024The clinical outcomes of patients who received a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with those of patients who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The clinical outcomes of patients who received a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with those of patients who did not receive a cervical collar.
METHODS
All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases as of 1 October 2023 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
Four studies with a total of 406 patients were included, and three of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis of the short-form 36 results revealed that wearing a cervical collar after anterior cervical decompression and fusion was more beneficial (P < 0.05). However, it is important to note that when considering the Neck Disability Index at the final follow-up visit, not wearing a cervical collar was found to be more advantageous. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative cervical range of motion, fusion rate, or neck disability index at 6 weeks postoperatively (all P > 0.05) between the cervical collar group and the no cervical collar group.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in the 6-week postoperative cervical range of motion, fusion rate, or neck disability index between the cervical collar group and the no cervical collar group. However, compared to patients who did not wear a cervical collar, patients who did wear a cervical collar had better scores on the short form 36. Interestingly, at the final follow-up visit, the neck disability index scores were better in the no cervical collar group than in the cervical collar group. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023466583.
Topics: Humans; Cervical Vertebrae; Decompression, Surgical; Diskectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Diseases; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38454504
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04661-8 -
Clinical Spine Surgery Dec 2023Systematic Review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGNS
Systematic Review.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
A significant advantage of PELD involves the option to use alternative sedation to general anesthesia (GA). Two options include local anesthesia (LA) and epidural anesthesia (EA). While EA is more involved, it may yield improved pain control and surgical results compared with LA. However, few studies have directly examined outcomes for PELD after LA versus EA, and it remains unknown which technique results in superior outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases examining PELD performed with LA or EA from inception to August 16, 2021 were conducted. All studies reported greater than 6 months of follow-up in addition to PRO data. PROs, including visual analog scale (VAS)-leg/back, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Complications, recurrent disk herniation, durotomy, and reoperation rates, as well as surgical data, were recorded. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining LA or EA.
RESULTS
Fifty-six studies consisting of 4465 patients (366 EA, 4099 LA) were included. Overall complication rate, durotomy rate, length of stay, recurrent disk herniation, and reoperation rates were similar between groups. VAS back/leg and ODI scores were all significantly improved at the first and last follow-up appointments in the LA group. VAS leg and ODI scores were significantly improved at the first and last follow-up appointments in the EA group, but VAS back was not.
CONCLUSIONS
EA can be a safe and feasible alternative to LA, potentially minimizing patient discomfort during PELD. Conclusions are limited by a high level of study bias and heterogeneity. Further investigation is necessary to determine if PELD under EA may have greater short-term PRO benefits compared with LA.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Anesthesia, Local; Lumbar Vertebrae; Endoscopy; Diskectomy; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37348062
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001476 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2023Zero-profile anchored spacers (ZAS) and plate-cage constructs (PCC) are currently employed when performing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Nevertheless,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Zero-profile anchored spacers (ZAS) and plate-cage constructs (PCC) are currently employed when performing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of both devices in bilevel ACDF remain controversial. The goal of our meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy and security among ZAS and PCC in bilevel ACDF.
METHODS
A search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify researches that compared ZAS with PCC for bilevel ACDF. Stata MP 17.0 software was used for this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Nine researches with a total of 580 patients were involved. In comparison to PCC, ZAS significantly reduced intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia rates. No significant differences were found concerning operation time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, the incidence of adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD) and implant sinking rates at last follow-up.
CONCLUSION
Compared to PCC, ZAS achieved similar efficacy and security in bilevel ACDF with respect to operative time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, implant sinking rates and ASD rates at final follow-up. It is worth noting that ZAS offered considerable benefits over conventional PCC for the reduction of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia. Therefore, for patients requiring bilevel ACDF, ZAS seems superior to PCC. Given the limitations of our study, larger prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to establish reliable proof to consolidate our conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Bone Plates; Deglutition Disorders; Diskectomy; Prospective Studies; Postoperative Complications; Cervical Vertebrae; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 37653510
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04134-4 -
World Neurosurgery May 2024Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for addressing cervical spine conditions. It involves the utilization of either cage plate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for addressing cervical spine conditions. It involves the utilization of either cage plate system (CPS) or stand-alone cage (SC). The objective of our study is to compare perioperative complications, patient-reported clinical outcomes measures, and radiographic outcomes of SC versus CPS in ACDF.
METHODS
We carried out a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of science, Medline, and Google Scholar. All studies comparing the outcomes between CPS versus SC in ACDF were included.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies, 33 observational and 8 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. We found that both devices demonstrated comparable effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF with respect to Japanese Orthopedic Association Score, Neck Disability Index score, visual analog score, and fusion rates. CPS demonstrated superior performance in maintaining disc height, cervical lordosis, and exhibited lower incidence rates of cage subsidence. SC showed significant advantages over CPS in terms of shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter duration of hospitalization, as well as lower incidence rates of early postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the included studies had monosegmented fusion, and there wasn't enough data to set recommendations for the multisegmented fusions. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to draw more definitive conclusions to provide evidence for clinicians to make clinical decisions.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fusion; Diskectomy; Cervical Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Bone Plates; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38382756
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.02.079 -
Neurosurgical Review Jan 2024Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a universal surgical technique used to achieve lumbar fusion. Traditionally static cages have been used to restore the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Exploring the differences in radiologic and clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with single- and bi-planar expandable cages: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a universal surgical technique used to achieve lumbar fusion. Traditionally static cages have been used to restore the disc space after discectomy. However, newer technological advancements have brought up uniplanar expandable cages (UECs) and more recently bi-planar expandable cages (BECs), the latter with the hope of reducing the events of intra- or postoperative subsidence compared to UECs. However, since BECs are relatively new, there has been no comparison to UECs. In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review, we sought to identify all Medline and Embase reports that used UECs and/or BECs for TLIF or posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Primary outcomes included subsidence and fusion rates. Secondary outcomes included VAS back pain score, VAS leg pain score, ODI, and other complications. A meta-analysis of proportions was the main method used to evaluate the extracted data. Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. A total of 15 studies were pooled in the analysis, 3 of which described BECs. There were no studies directly comparing the UECs to BECs. A statistically significant difference in fusion rates was found between UECs and BECs (p = 0.04). Due to lack of direct comparative literature, definitive conclusions cannot be made about differences between UECs and BECs. The analysis showed a statistically higher fusion rate for BECs versus UECs, but this should be interpreted cautiously. No other statistically significant differences were found. As more direct comparative studies emerge, future meta-analyses may clarify potential differences between these cage types.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lumbosacral Region; Pain; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 38191751
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-023-02277-w -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Apr 2024This study aimed to assess the impact of full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (FETD) on clinical outcomes and complications in both obese and non-obese patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Comparative outcomes of obese and non-obese patients with lumbar disc herniation receiving full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the impact of full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (FETD) on clinical outcomes and complications in both obese and non-obese patients presenting with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
METHODS
A systematic search of relevant literature was conducted across various primary databases until November 18, 2023. Operative time and hospitalization were evaluated. Clinical outcomes included preoperative and postoperative assessments of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, conducted to delineate improvements at 3 months postoperatively and during the final follow-up, respectively. Complications were also documented.
RESULTS
Four retrospective studies meeting inclusion criteria provided a collective cohort of 258 patients. Obese patients undergoing FETD experienced significantly longer operative times compared to non-obese counterparts (P = 0.0003). Conversely, no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in hospitalization duration, improvement of VAS for back and leg pain scores at 3 months postoperatively and final follow-up, improvement of ODI at 3 months postoperatively and final follow-up. Furthermore, the overall rate of postoperative complications was higher in the obese group (P = 0.02). The obese group demonstrated a total incidence of complications of 17.17%, notably higher than the lower rate of 9.43% observed in the non-obese group.
CONCLUSION
The utilization of FETD for managing LDH in individuals with obesity is associated with prolonged operative times and a higher total complication rate compared to their non-obese counterparts. Nevertheless, it remains a safe and effective surgical intervention for treating herniated lumbar discs in the context of obesity.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Obesity; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Endoscopy; Diskectomy; Postoperative Complications; Operative Time; Pain Measurement; Disability Evaluation; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38654321
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07455-5 -
World Neurosurgery Jun 2024The optimal choice for fusion strategy in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) remains an unresolved issue. This study aims to perform a network meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The optimal choice for fusion strategy in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) remains an unresolved issue. This study aims to perform a network meta-analysis and systematic review of fusion rate and complication rate of various fusion strategies used in ACDF.
METHODS
This study followed Prisma guidelines, and we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to November 11, 2022, for RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of fusion modalities in ACDF. The primary outcome was the fusion rate and complication rate. The PROSPERO number is CRD42022374440.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis identified 26 RCT studies with 1789 patients across 15 fusion methods. The cage with autograft + plating (CATG + P) showed the highest fusion rate, surpassing other methods like iliac crest autograft (ICAG) and artificial bone graft (AFG). The stand-alone cage with autograft (SATG) had the second highest fusion rate. Regarding complication rate, the cage with artificial bone graft (CAFG) had the highest rate, more than other methods. The ICAG had a higher complication rate compared to ICAG + P, AFG, SAFG, SATG, and CALG. The SATG performed well in both fusion and complication rate.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we conducted the first network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of various fusion methods in ACDF. Our findings suggest that SATG, with superior performance in fusion rate and complication rate, may be the optimal choice for ACDF. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously until additional research provides further evidence.
PubMed: 38942142
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.06.117 -
Pain Physician Jan 2024Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is a subtype characterized by calcification, leading to increased surgical complexity. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is a subtype characterized by calcification, leading to increased surgical complexity. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a minimally invasive technique, but its effectiveness and complications in CLDH patients remain to be fully evaluated.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and complications of PELD in treating CLDH patients.
STUDY DESIGN
A retrospective cohort study combined with a systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Department of Pain Medicine, an affiliated hospital of a university.
METHODS
Data from patients who underwent PELD in our department between March 2020 and May 2021 were collected. Forty CLDH patients were included in the study group, and equally matched cases with uncalcified lumbar disc herniation (UCLDH) served as controls. A systematic search was conducted on October 5, 2022, using EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, the China Biology Medicine disk, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled results.
RESULTS
Eighty patients were included in the retrospective cohort, and 41 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Both the retrospective cohort and meta-analysis consistently showed a significant decrease in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in the CLDH group after the operation. In the retrospective cohort, the excellent or good rate according to the MacNab classification was 85%, with no reported complications. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled excellent or good rate of 91.8% and a low complication rate of 2.9%. Combining the findings from our retrospective cohort and meta-analysis, we observed that the CLDH group had longer operation times and slightly higher postoperative ODI scores compared to the UCLDH group.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample size and lack of long-term follow-up in the retrospective cohort, as well as limited inclusion of comparative studies in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
PELD is an effective and safe treatment option for CLDH patients. In comparison to UCLDH patients, CLDH patients may experience longer operation times and slightly slower functional recovery than those with UCLDH.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38285024
DOI: No ID Found