-
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 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Oct 2021Implants for use in disc herniation surgery have been commercially available for some time. Several clinical trials have shown promising results. There are now a wide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Implants for use in disc herniation surgery have been commercially available for some time. Several clinical trials have shown promising results. There are now a wide variety of surgical methods for treating lumbar disc herniation.
PURPOSE
The objective of this systematic review was to compare all current surgical methods for disc herniation, including newer methods with implants for annulus repair and dynamic stabilization.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
PRISMA-P guidelines were followed in this review. Literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases identified eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies comparing interventions for lumbar disc surgery. The investigated outcomes were: changes in pain score, disability score and reoperation rate with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Risk of bias was assessed in concordance with Cochrane Neck and Back Review Group recommendation. A network meta-analysis was performed using gemtc and BUGSnet software, and each outcome evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA).
RESULTS
Thirty-two RCT studies, with 4,877 participants, and eight different interventions were identified. A significant difference was seen in change of pain score, as all treatments were superior to conservative treatment and percutaneous discectomy. This difference was only found to be of clinically importance when comparing conservative treatment and dynamic stabilization. There was no significant difference in reoperation rates or change in disability score, regardless of treatment. However, SUCRA plots showed a trend in ranking annulus repair and dynamic stabilization highest. Risk of bias assessment showed that 15 studies had a high overall risk of bias. Meta-regression with risk of bias as covariate did not indicate any influence in risk of bias on the model. Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis evaluation showed a high level of confidence for all treatment comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
With this network meta-analysis, we have aimed to compare all treatments for herniated lumbar disc in one large comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis. We have compared across the three main outcomes: disability score, pain score and reoperation rate. We were not able to rank one single treatment as the best. Most of the treatment performed at the same level. However percutaneous discectomy and conservative treatment consistently performed worse than the other treatments. In general, the CINeMA evaluation according to the GRADE recommendations gave a high level of confidence for the study comparisons.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33667683
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.022 -
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 -
World Neurosurgery May 2023Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) is a novel and minimally invasive surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, efficacy and safety of UBED... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) is a novel and minimally invasive surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, efficacy and safety of UBED compared to the conventional percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) remains to be determined. A meta-analysis was performed in this study to compare between UBED and PELD for LDH.
METHODS
Relevant cohort studies were found by searching Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang, and CNKI from database inception to October 13, 2022. Results were pooled using a random-effects model incorporating heterogeneity.
RESULTS
In this meta-analysis, 12 studies involving 1175 patients with LDH were included. Pooled results showed that compared with PELD, UBED was associated with a longer surgery time (mean difference [MD] 17.62 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (MD 1.40 day, P = 0.04). However, UBED and PELD showed comparative efficacies in improving the Visual Analogue Scale of leg and back, and Oswestry Disability Index, scores. The incidence of perioperative complications was not significantly different between the 2 procedures (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, P = 0.25), while UBED was associated with a lower LDH recurrence during follow-up (RR 0.29, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Although UBED is associated with longer surgery time and hospital stay, it shows similar efficacy to PELD in relieving pain and improving functional ability in patients with LDH. In addition, limited evidence suggests that UBED may be associated with a lower LDH recurrence as compared to PELD, while the incidence of perioperative complications is not different. These findings support UBED as a treatment for patients with LDH.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Endoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36841538
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.087 -
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 -
Journal of Spine Surgery (Hong Kong) Sep 2022Open discectomy (OD) and microdiscectomy (MD) are routine procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Open discectomy (OD) and microdiscectomy (MD) are routine procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) and full endoscopic discectomy (FED), offers potential advantages (less pain, less bleeding, shorter hospitalisation and earlier return to work), but their complications have not yet been fully evaluated. The aim of this paper was to identify the frequency of these complications with a focus on MIS in comparison to OD/MD.
METHODS
The authors conducted a Medline database search for randomised controlled and prospective cohort studies reporting complications associated with MIS and MD/OD from 1997 to February 2020. Included studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality assessment form. Mean complication rates for each technique were calculated by dividing the total number of each complication by the total number of patients included in the studies which reported that specific complication.
RESULTS
Of the 1,095 articles retrieved from Medline, 35 met the inclusion criteria. OD, MD, MED and FED were associated with: recurrent lumbar disc hernias in 4.1%, 5.1%, 3.9% and 3.5% respectively; re-operations in 5.2%, 7.5%, 4.9% and 4% respectively; wound complications in 3.5%, 3.5%, 1.2% and 2% respectively; durotomy in 6.6%, 2.3%, 4.4% and 1.1% respectively; neurological complications in 1.8%, 2.8%, 4.5% and 4.9% respectively. Nerve root injury was reported in 0.3% for MD, 0.8% for MED and 1.2% for FED.
DISCUSSION
This up-to-date systematic review of complications after various techniques of lumbar discectomy (including a large pool of patients who had MIS) confirms previous findings of low and comparable rates. However variable levels of bias were reported amongst included studies, which reported complications with varying levels of clinical detail.
PubMed: 36285095
DOI: 10.21037/jss-21-59 -
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Jun 2022This meta-analysis evaluated surgical outcomes following endoscopic or conventional discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis evaluated surgical outcomes following endoscopic or conventional discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS
Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were search until October 16, 2016 using these terms: recurrent lumbar disc herniation, endoscopic surgery, and discectomy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, retrospective, and cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. Pooled difference in mean (PDM) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) or relative risks (RRs) were calculated using fixed-effects methods.
RESULTS
One RCT and 15 studies were included with a total of 820 patients. Patients received endoscopic surgery experienced shorter operation time than those received conventional surgery (PDM: -52.01, 95% CI: -76.84 to -27.18, < 0.001). A significantly lower risk in complication was displayed in patients received endoscopic surgery compared to those received conventional surgery (RR: 0.209, 95% CI: 0.076-0.581, = 0.003). No significant difference in the improvement in VAS (PDM: -2.19, 95% CI: -5.78 to 1.39, = 0.231), length of stay (PDM: -6.44, 95% CI: -13.76 to 0.89, = 0.085) and re-recurrence rate (PDM: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.22-3.50, = 0.861) between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic and conventional discectomy reduced patient pain comparably, but endoscopic discectomy had significantly lower operation time and lower risk in complications, which may impact other outcomes such as recovery and healthcare costs. More studies are needed to confirm our findings.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00636-1.
PubMed: 35669028
DOI: 10.1007/s43465-022-00636-1 -
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 -
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 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022In order to compare the outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and open lumbar discectomy (OLD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
In order to compare the outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and open lumbar discectomy (OLD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
METHODS
The Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Sience, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wangfang databases were searched from inception to April 30, 2022 to collect the published studies about PTED vs. OLD for treatment of LDH. The Revman 5.2 was used for data analysis. The primary outcomes were excellent rates, complication rates and reoperation rates. The secondary outcomes were length of incision, length of operation, length of hospital stay, and the amount of intraoperative blood loss.
RESULTS
A total of nine studies were included, of which, eight randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study involving 1,679 patients with LDH (755 patients for PTED, and 924 patients for OLD) were included. According to meta-analysis, there were no significant difference in excellent rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.47, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.94-2.28, = 0.09), reoperation rates (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.50-1.84, = 0.90), length of operation [standardized mean differences (SMD) = -17.97, 95%CI: -54.83-18.89, = 0.34], and the amount of intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -128.05, 95%CI: -258.67-2.57, = 0.05), respectively. There were significant differences in complication rates (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.14-0.33, < 0.001), length of incision (SMD = -2.76, 95%CI: -2.88--2.65, < 0.001), and length of hospital stay (SMD = -5.19, 95%CI: -5.36--5.01, < 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
PTED can achieve better outcomes with respect to the complication rates, length of incision, and length of hospital stay compared with OLD.
PubMed: 36439526
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.984868