-
Spine Apr 2021Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To give a systematic overview of effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open microdiscectomy (OM) in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
The current standard procedure for the treatment of sciatica caused by LDH, is OM. PTED is an alternative surgical technique which is thought to be less invasive. It is unclear if PTED has comparable outcomes compared with OM.
METHODS
Multiple online databases were systematically searched up to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials and prospective studies comparing PTED with OM for LDH. Primary outcomes were leg pain and functional status. Pooled effect estimates were calculated for the primary outcomes only and presented as standard mean differences (SMD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) at short (1-day postoperative), intermediate (3-6 months), and long-term (12 months).
RESULTS
We identified 2276 citations, of which eventually 14 studies were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in effects on leg pain at short term. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain at intermediate (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.10-0.21) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.30-0.53). Only one study measured functional status at short-term and reported no differences. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in functional status at intermediate (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.24-0.07) and long-term (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.45-0.24).
CONCLUSION
There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain or functional status at intermediate and long-term follow-up between PTED and OM in the treatment of LDH. High quality, robust studies reporting on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness on the long term are lacking.Level of Evidence: 2.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Microsurgery; Pain Measurement; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33290374
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003843 -
World Neurosurgery Oct 2023There are no systematic evidence-based medical data on the complications of endoscopic cervical spinal surgery. This narrative analysis compiled data from various... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are no systematic evidence-based medical data on the complications of endoscopic cervical spinal surgery. This narrative analysis compiled data from various studies that examined endoscopic complications, such as cervical disc herniation and foraminal stenosis. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic surgery in cervical radiculopathy.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE databases to identify articles on endoscopic spinal surgery, and keywords were set as "endoscopic cervical spinal surgery", "endoscopic cervical discectomy", "endoscopic cervical foraminotomy", and "percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy". We analyzed the evidence level and classified the prescribed complications according to the literature. Endoscopic cervical surgery was divided into three categories: full endoscopic anterior, endoscopic posterior, and unilateral biportal approaches. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies without complications or incomplete information, and studies that did not provide the necessary data for extraction, animal experiments, or reviews.
RESULTS
Difficulties in swallowing, hematoma, and hoarseness are common complications associated with the anterior cervical approach. In contrast, complications of the posterior approach include nerve root injury, hematoma, and dysesthesia. However, endoscopic cervical spinal surgery, including the full endoscopic anterior, posterior, and unilateral biportal approaches, is a safe and effective treatment for cervical radiculopathy.
CONCLUSIONS
Complications of full endoscopic cervical spinal surgery differ significantly depending on the anterior and posterior approaches. In the anterior approach, swallowing difficulty, recurrent disc, hematoma, and dysphonia are the common complications. In contrast, transient dysesthesia, dural tears, upper limb motor deficits, and persistent arm pain are commonly reported with the posterior approach.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Paresthesia; Cervical Vertebrae; Endoscopy; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Diskectomy; Hematoma; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37479028
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.07.058 -
Spine Apr 2023A systematic review of the literature to develop an algorithm formulated by key opinion leaders.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature to develop an algorithm formulated by key opinion leaders.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to analyze currently available data and propose a decision-making algorithm for full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH) to help surgeons choose the most appropriate approach [transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) or interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD)] for patients.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Full-endoscopic discectomy has gained popularity in recent decades. To our knowledge, an algorithm for choosing the proper surgical approach has never been proposed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and MeSH terms was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Patient samples included patients with LDH treated with full-endoscopic discectomy. The inclusion criteria were interventional research (randomized and nonrandomized trials) and observation research (cohort, case-control, case series). Exclusion criteria were case series and technical reports. The criteria used for selecting patients were grouped and analyzed. Then, an algorithm was generated based on these findings with support and reconfirmation from key expert opinions. Data on overall complications were collected. Outcome measures included zone of herniation, level of herniation, and approach (TELD or IELD).
RESULTS
In total, 474 articles met the initial screening criteria. The detailed analysis identified the 80 best-matching articles; after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 53 articles remained for this review.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed algorithm suggests a TELD for LDH located in the foraminal or extraforaminal zones at upper and lower levels and for central and subarticular discs at the upper levels considering the anatomic foraminal features and the craniocaudal pathology location. An IELD is preferred for LDH in the central or subarticular zones at L4/L5 and L5/S1, especially if a high iliac crest or high-grade migration is found.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Endoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36745468
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004589 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Apr 2023Previous low-quality evidence has suggested preoperative Modic changes (MC) showed a trend toward less improvement in low back pain in patients with lumbar disc... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Previous low-quality evidence has suggested preoperative Modic changes (MC) showed a trend toward less improvement in low back pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) undergoing discectomy. However, a recent meta-analysis concluded that the presence of preoperative MC did not significantly impact clinical outcomes following lumbar discectomy.
PURPOSE
To compare low back pain and functional outcomes of patients after discectomy for LDH with preoperative MC.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
METHODS
This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis used English-language articles identified through searches using Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library until August 2022. The included studies identified publications that concentrated on the patients suffering from LDH with different preoperative MCs treated by discectomy. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were the two main metrics to evaluate outcomes.
RESULTS
A series of 2,299 LDH patients with a definitive type of MC were included in four retrospective and five prospective studies. Overall, there is moderate to high quality evidence suggesting no significant difference between normal and MC groups for pain outcomes as well as normal and Modic type 2 groups in terms of pain or functional outcomes at one or two-year follow up. There are less functional outcomes in LDH patients with preoperative MC compared with no MC at 2-year follow up and showed no significant difference at 1-year follow-up. However, above all results may due to heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis revealed that only Modic type 1 showed statistically lower functional scores (mean difference in ODI scores range from 0 to 100) compared with Modic type 2 or compared with no MC at 2-year follow-up and showed no significant difference at 1-year follow-up (MC1 vs. MC0, p=.24, MD= -2.70; 95% CI, -7.15 to 1.76 for 1-year;p<.00001, MD= -7.92; 95% CI, -11.19 to -4.66 for 2 years. MC1 vs. MC2, p=.58, MD= -1.29; 95% CI, -5.83 to 3.25 for 1-year;p<.0001, MD= -6.77; 95% CI, -9.94 to -3.61 for 2 years).
CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest LDH patients with or without preoperative MCs show a similar improvement of low back pain at 1 and 2-year follow-up and functional scores after discectomy at one-year follow-up. LDH patients with preoperative Modic type 1 are associated with worse functional status after discectomy at 2-year follow-up. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies which focus on analyzing the risk and confounding factors are lacking.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Low Back Pain; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36328303
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.10.008 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Dec 2022Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34-59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = -2.55, 95% CI: - 3.25 to - 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = - 4.30, 95% CI: - 5.61 to - 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2-9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = - 3.22, 95% CI: - 5.21 to - 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI: - 2.67to - 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.96).
CONCLUSION
PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Neck Pain; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Diskectomy; Endoscopy
PubMed: 36456964
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03365-1 -
Clinical Spine Surgery Nov 2023A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Mid-term and Long-term Outcomes After Total Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Compared With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
STUDY DESIGN
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare mid-term to long-term outcomes of cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disk disease.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
After ACDF to treat symptomatic cervical degenerative disk disease, the loss of motion at the index level due to fusion may accelerate adjacent-level disk degeneration. CDA was developed to preserve motion and reduce the risk of adjacent segment degeneration. Early-term to mid-term clinical outcomes from RCTs suggest noninferiority of CDA compared with ACDF, but it remains unclear whether CDA yields better mid-term to long-term outcomes than ACDF.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs with at least 60 months of follow-up. The risk ratio or standardized mean difference (and 95% CIs) were calculated for dichotomous or continuous variables, respectively.
RESULTS
Eighteen reports of 14 RCTs published in 2014-2023 were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that the CDA group had a significantly greater improvement in neurological success and Neck Disability Index than the ACDF group. The ACDF group exhibited a significantly better improvement in the Short Form-36 Health Survey Physical Component Summary than the CDA group. Radiographic adjacent segment degeneration was significantly lower in the CDA group at 60- and 84-month follow-ups; at 120-month follow-up, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Although the overall rate of secondary surgical procedures was significantly lower in the CDA group, we did not observe any significant difference at 60-month follow-up between the CDA and ACDF group and appreciated statistically significant lower rates of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration, and symptomatic adjacent-level disease requiring surgery at 84-month and 108- to 120-month follow-up. The rate of adverse events and the neck and arm pain scores in the CDA group were not significantly different from those of the ACDF group.
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with 5- to 10-year follow-up data, CDA resulted in significantly better neurological success and Neck Disability Index scores and lower rates of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration, secondary surgical procedures, and symptomatic adjacent-level disease requiring surgery than ACDF. ACDF resulted in improved Short Form-36 Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores. However, the CDA and ACDF groups did not exhibit significant differences in overall changes in neck and arm pain scores or rates of adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fusion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Diskectomy; Cervical Vertebrae; Pain; Arthroplasty; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37735768
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001537 -
World Neurosurgery Dec 2022Endoscopic lumbar discectomy has been an alternative for treating lumbar disc herniation. Evidence-based study for the benefit zone of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Endoscopic lumbar discectomy has been an alternative for treating lumbar disc herniation. Evidence-based study for the benefit zone of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is necessary. The study compared the complication risks between the FELD and open discectomy or microdiscectomy.
METHODS
The literature search was from 4 online databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The meta-analysis of different study designs was conducted separately. Complication rates were considered primary outcomes, and the recurrence and revision rates were considered secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and thirteen cohort studies met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis was conducted separately. From the pooled RCT meta-analysis, the overall complication rates of FELD and open discectomy/microdiscectomy were 5.5% and 10.4%, respectively. The moderate-quality evidence suggested that FELD had a lower risk of overall complications (risk ratio [RR] = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.98). There was no significant difference in specific complications and recurrence. The analysis of cohort studies revealed no significant difference in overall complications, but there was significant heterogeneity in the results. The risk of dural injury was significantly lower for FELD (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.22-0.96). The pooled meta-analysis from cohort studies suggested a higher risk of transient dysesthesia (RR = 3.70, 95% CI = 1.54-8.89), residual fragment (RR = 5.29, 95% CI = 2.67-10.45), and revision surgeries (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.12-2.08) for FELD.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence showed a lower risk of overall complications for FELD. The quality of evidence was moderate to low, and the risk of bias from the primary literature should be concerned.
Topics: Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Endoscopy; Reoperation; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36527213
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.06.023 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Nov 2020Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become an increasingly popular treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease. One potential complication is osteolysis. However,...
PURPOSE
Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become an increasingly popular treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease. One potential complication is osteolysis. However, current literature on this topic appears limited. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the incidence, aetiology, consequence, and subsequent treatment of this complication.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies discussing the causes, incidence and management of osteolysis after a CA were included.
RESULTS
A total of nine studies were included. We divided these studies into two groups: (1) large case series in which an active radiological evaluation for osteolysis was performed (total = six studies), (2) case report studies, which discussed symptomatic cases of osteolysis (total = three). The incidence of asymptomatic osteolysis ranged from 8 to 64%; however, only one study reported an incidence of < 10% and when this case was excluded the incidence ranged from 44 to 64%. Severe asymptomatic bone loss (exposure of the implant) was found in less than 4% of patients. Bone loss from osteolysis appeared to occur early (< 1 year) after surgery and late (> 1 year) as well. Symptomatic patients with osteolysis often required revision surgery. These patients required removal of implant and conversion to fusion in the majority of the cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Osteolysis after CDA is common; however, the majority of cases have only mild or asymptomatic presentations that do not require revision surgery. The timing of osteolysis varies significantly. This may be due to differences in the aetiology of osteolysis.
Topics: Arthroplasty; Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Osteolysis; Spinal Fusion; Total Disc Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32865650
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06578-2 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Mar 2023Various factors have been examined in relation to cage subsidence risk, including cage material, cage geometry, bone mineral density, device type, surgical level, bone... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Various factors have been examined in relation to cage subsidence risk, including cage material, cage geometry, bone mineral density, device type, surgical level, bone graft, and patient age. The present study aims to compare and synthesize the literature of both clinical and biomechanical studies to evaluate and present the factors associated with cage subsidence.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of the literature from January 2003 to December 2021 was conducted using the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Following the screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 49 clinical studies were included. Correlations between clinical and biomechanical studies are also discussed.
RESULTS
Patients treated with the cage and plate combination had a lower subsidence rate than patients with the stand-alone cage. Overall, Polyetheretherketone material was shown to have a lower subsidence rate than titanium and other materials. The subsidence rate was also higher when the surgery was performed at levels C5-C7 than at levels C2-C5. No significant correlation was found between age and cage subsidence clinically.
CONCLUSIONS
Cage subsidence increases the stress on the anterior fixation system and may cause biomechanical instability. Severe cage subsidence decreases the Cobb angle and intervertebral height, which may cause destabilization of the implant system, such as screw/plate loosening or breakage of the screw/plate. Various factors have been shown to influence the risk of cage subsidence. Examining clinical research alongside biomechanical studies offers a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy; Polyethylene Glycols; Ketones; Bone Plates; Bone Screws
PubMed: 36708398
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07530-w -
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.... Nov 2022Adjacent segment disease (ASD) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating (ACDF-P) may yield a poor prognosis or reoperation. This review aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adjacent segment disease (ASD) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating (ACDF-P) may yield a poor prognosis or reoperation. This review aimed to summarize risk factors for radiographic ASD (RASD) and clinical ASD (CASD) after ACDF-P.
METHODS
Six electronic databases were searched from inception to October 30, 2021. Four reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles to identify relevant studies. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Meta-analyses for risk factors were conducted, if possible.
RESULTS
Sixteen cohort and 3 case-control studies (3,563 participants) were included. These studies showed low (n = 2), moderate (n = 9), and high (n = 8) risk of bias. One risk factor for RASD was pooled for 2 meta-analyses based on the follow-up period. Four different risk factors for CASD at ≥4 years were pooled for meta-analyses. Limited evidence showed that multi-level fusion, greater asymmetry in total or functional cross-sectional area of the cervical paraspinal muscle, and preoperative degeneration in a greater number of segments were associated with a higher RASD incidence <4 years after ACDF-P. In contrast, no significant risk factors were identified for CASD <4 years after ACDF-P. At ≥4 years after ACDF-P, limited evidence supported that both cephalad and caudal plate-to-disc distances of <5 mm were associated with a higher RASD incidence, and very limited evidence supported that developmental canal stenosis, preoperative RASD, unfused C5-C6 or C6-C7 adjacent segments, use of autogenous bone graft, and spondylosis-related ACDF-P were associated with a higher CASD incidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Although several risk factors for RASD and CASD development after ACDF-P were identified, the supporting evidence was very limited to limited. Future prospective studies should extend the existing knowledge by more robustly identifying risk factors for RASD and CASD after ACDF-P to inform clinical practice.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Cervical Vertebrae; Spinal Fusion; Prospective Studies; Diskectomy; Risk Factors; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
PubMed: 36321969
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.21.01494