-
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 -
Global Spine Journal Jul 2023Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
It remains unknown whether general anesthesia (GA) or local ± epidural anesthesia (LA) results in superior outcomes with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). The present study sought to examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications with PELD.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis examining PELD performed under GA or LA was conducted. Patient-reported outcomes including Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg/back, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Complication, recurrent disc herniation, durotomy, and reoperation rates as well as surgical data were recorded. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining GA or LA.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight studies consisting of 5269 patients (724 GA, 4465 LA) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall complication rate was significantly higher in the GA group (9% vs 4%, = .003). Durotomy rates, length of stay, recurrent disc herniation and reoperation rates were similar between groups. At the first follow-up timepoint, the LA group demonstrated significant improvements in VAS back and ODI scores ( < .05) while the GA group did not ( > .05). At the final follow-up (> 6 months), the percent of patients achieving an excellent McNab score was significantly higher in the GA vs LA group ( < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with LA may be associated with greater short-term improvement in VAS back pain and ODI scores. General anesthesia may be associated with more durable pain relief but a higher complication rate. Further systematic investigation is necessary to determine what short and long term benefits are associated with PELD performed under LA and GA.
PubMed: 36564907
DOI: 10.1177/21925682221147868 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery.
METHODS
Electronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review.
RESULTS
After the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores ( < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores ( = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores ( = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores ( = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores ( = 0.09) or complications ( = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores ( = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores ( = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores ( = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores ( = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores ( = 0.07) and complications ( = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores.
CONCLUSIONS
UBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
PubMed: 35959116
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.911914 -
The Korean Journal of Pain Jan 2022Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) has been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Epidural injection of steroids can reduce...
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) has been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Epidural injection of steroids can reduce the incidence and duration of postoperative pain in a short period of time. Although steroids are widely believed to reduce the effect of surgical trauma, the observation indicators are not uniform, especially the long-term effects, so the problem remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to evaluate the efficacy of epidural steroids following PTED.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database from 1980 to June 2021 to identify randomized and non-randomized controlled trials comparing epidural steroids and saline alone following PTED. The primary outcomes included postoperative pain at least 6 months as assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and the time of return to work.
RESULTS
A total of 451 patients were included in three randomized and two nonrandomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes, including VAS and ODI scores, did not differ significantly between epidural steroids following PTED and saline alone. There were no significant intergroup differences in length of hospital stay. Epidural steroids were shown to be superior in terms of the time to return to work (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Intraoperative epidural steroids did not provide significant benefits, leg pain control, improvement in ODI scores, and length of stay in the hospital, but it can enable the patient to return to work faster.
PubMed: 34966016
DOI: 10.3344/kjp.2022.35.1.97 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Aug 2022For some patients, local anesthesia (LA) in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED), especially during canal shaping and discectomy, is insufficient for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
For some patients, local anesthesia (LA) in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED), especially during canal shaping and discectomy, is insufficient for analgesia. Epidural anesthesia (EA) is infrequently applied in PTED but reports satisfactory results. Previous studies present conflicting results in analgesia satisfactory and adverse events. Differences in surgery details and small sample size might explain conflicting results. Meta-analysis pools the results from individual studies to create a larger sample size and provides a more reliable conclusion. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EA in PTED.
METHODS
The search terms "percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy" and "anesthesia" are used to search Cochrane, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, OVID, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, and Wanfang from inception to 2021-08. Inclusion criteria is defined according to PICOS principals: P (patients): patients are diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation or spinal canal stenosis. I (intervention): patients undergo PTED under EA. C (comparisons): patients undergo PTED under LA. O (outcomes): primary outcomes: intraoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), anesthesia satisfactory, sufentanil usage. Secondary outcomes: adverse events, surgery exit, bleed volume, X-ray radiation. S (study design): randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane RoB 2.0 is used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Authors perform meta-analysis through Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies representing 529 patients are included: EA group includes 261 patients, and LA group includes 268 patients. All studies lack design of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. Only Luo reports blinding of outcome assessment in 2019. Meta analysis concludes that EA is superior in intraoperative analgesic [mean difference (MD) =-4.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.52 to -4.09; P<0.00001], anesthesia satisfactory [odds ratio (OR) =10.06; 95% CI: 2.41 to 41.98; P=0.002], sufentanil usage (MD =-9.12; 95% CI: -10.34 to -7.90; P<0.00001), adverse events (OR =0.19; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.52; P=0.001). There is no difference in bleed volume (MD =-2.61; 95% CI: -5.45 to 0.23; P=0.07), exit rate (OR =0.23; 95% CI: 0.04 to 1.35; P=0.10) and future effects (MD =-0.23; 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.03; P=0.08).
DISCUSSION
EA is an effective and safe anesthesia method for PTED and might achieve better clinical results than LA. More high-quality research is needed to provide high-quality evidence for efficacy and safety.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Local; Diskectomy; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Sufentanil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35871273
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3413 -
Clinical Spine Surgery Mar 2023A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy for Single-level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare the safety of microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (MI-ACDF) and posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy (PPEKF) in patients diagnosed with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
After conservative treatment, the symptoms will be relieved in about 90% of cervical radiculopathy patients. For the other one tenth of patients, surgical treatment is needed. The overall complication rate of MI-ACDF and PPEKF ranges from 0% to 25%, and the reoperation rate ranges from 0% to 20%.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic retrieval of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify comparative or single-arm studies on MI-ACDF and PPEKF. A total of 24 studies were included in our meta-analysis by screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed by using the R software. The pooled incidences of efficient rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 24 studies with 1345 patients (MI-ACDF: 644, PPEKF: 701) were identified. There was no significantly statistical difference in pooled patient effective rate (MI-ACDF: 94.3% vs. PPEKF: 93.3%, P =0.625), total complication rate (MI-ACDF: 7.1% vs. PPEKF: 4.7%, P =0.198), and reoperation rate (MI-ACDF: 1.8% vs. PPEKF: 1.1%, P =0.312). However, the common complications of the 2 procedures were different. The most common complications of MI-ACDF were dysphagia and vertebral body sinking, whereas the most common complication of PPEKF was nerve root palsy.
CONCLUSIONS
Both MI-ACDF and PPEKF can provide a relatively safe and reliable treatment for single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy. The 2 techniques are not significantly different in terms of effective rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate.
Topics: Humans; Foraminotomy; Radiculopathy; Cervical Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Diskectomy; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 35344521
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001327 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Nov 2021To evaluate the impact of discectomy on disc height (DH) in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) patients following discectomy surgery and address the association of DH change... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the impact of discectomy on disc height (DH) in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) patients following discectomy surgery and address the association of DH change with pain score change.
METHODS
We searched three online databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. In LDH patients, eligible for discectomy surgery, the changes in pre- and post-operative back and/or leg pain score and DH and/or disc height index (DHI) were considered as primary outcomes. Standardize mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were evaluated. The GRADE approach was used to summarize the strength of evidence.
RESULTS
Two RCTs and sixteen observational studies were included in the analysis of 893 LDH patients undergoing discectomy surgery. The mean overall follow-up was 211 weeks. There was a statistically significant reduction in DH (14.4% reduction: SMD = -0.74 (95% CI = -0.86 to -0.61)) and DHI (11.5% reduction: SMD = -0.81 (95% CI = -0.97 to -0.65)) following discectomy surgery. There was a significant relationship between the reduction in DH and decrease in back pain score (r = 0.68, (95% CI = 0.07-1.30), p = 0.034) after discectomy surgery. No significant relationship between DHI change and decrease in clinical pain scores (back and leg pain) could be established.
CONCLUSION
Discectomy surgery produces significant and quantifiable reductions in DH and DHI. Additionally, the reduction in DH is responsible for the decrease in back pain scores post discectomy, but further studies will improve understanding and aid preoperative counselling.
Topics: Back Pain; Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Pain Measurement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34114106
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-06891-4 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2021Therapeutic options for lumbar disc surgery (LDH) have been rapidly evolved worldwide. Conventional pair meta-analysis has shown inconsistent results of the safety of...
Therapeutic options for lumbar disc surgery (LDH) have been rapidly evolved worldwide. Conventional pair meta-analysis has shown inconsistent results of the safety of different surgical interventions for LDH. A network pooling evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted to compare eight surgical interventions on complications for patients with LDH. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCT from inception to June 2020, with registration in PROSPERO (CRD42020176821). This study is conducted in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. Primary outcomes include intraoperative, post-operative, and overall complications, reoperation, operation time, and blood loss. A total of 27 RCT with 2,948 participants and eight interventions, including automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), chemonucleolysis (CN), microdiscectomy (MD), micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED), open discectomy (OD), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD), and tubular discectomy (TD) were enrolled. The pooling results suggested that PELD and PLDD are with lower intraoperative and post-operative complication rates, respectively. TD, PELD, PLDD, and MED were the safest procedures for LDH according to complications, reoperation, operation time, and blood loss. The results of this study provided evidence that PELD and PLDD were with lower intraoperative and post-operative complication rates, respectively. TD, PELD, PLDD, and MED were the safest procedures for LDH according to complications, reoperation, operation time, and blood loss. PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020176821.
PubMed: 34355013
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.679142 -
World Neurosurgery Oct 2022The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of local anesthesia (LA) and epidural anesthesia (EA) for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety Between Local Anesthesia versus Epidural Anesthesia for Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of local anesthesia (LA) and epidural anesthesia (EA) for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and provide reference data for clinical decision-making.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, Medline, Science Direct, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to March 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing LA and EA for PTED. Studies that assessed at least 2 of the following indicators were considered eligible: surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, satisfaction rate, visual analog scale scores for pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and complications. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.3 software.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and 5 retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 1660 patients were included. The LA and EA groups included 803 and 857 patients, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed significant intergroup differences in the intraoperative lumbar visual analog scale scores (P < 0.00001) and anesthesia satisfaction rate (P < 0.00001). There were no significant intergroup differences in the surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, postoperative Oswestry Disability Index, and complication rate.
CONCLUSIONS
EA is as safe as LA and produces better anesthetic effects than LA in patients undergoing PTED. Therefore, EA should be promoted as a reliable anesthetic technique for PTED.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Local; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35853571
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.07.040 -
Medicine Sep 2022The purpose of this study was to analyze unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to analyze unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched online. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 16.0.
RESULTS
The selection criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 281 patients (142 cases in the UBE group and 139 cases in the PELD group) and good methodological quality. PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage (MD = 36.808, 95% CI (23.766, 49.850), P = .000; MD = 59.269, 95% CI (21.527, 97.010), P = .000) compared with UBE. No differences were found in the back pain VAS score at preoperative (MD = -0.024, 95% CI [-0.572, 0.092], P = .998), at 1 day after operation (MD = -0.300, 95% CI [-0.845, 0.246], P = .878), the VAS score of leg pain at preoperative (MD = -0.099, 95% CI [-0.417, 0.220], P = .762), at 1 day after operation (MD = 0.843, 95% CI [0.193, 1.492], P = .420), at 1 month after operation (MD = -0.027, 95% CI [-0.433, 0.380], P = .386), at 6 months after operation (MD = 0.122, 95% CI [-0.035, 0.278], P = .946), hospital stay (MD = 3.708, 95% CI [3.202, 4.214], P = .000) and other clinical effects between UBE and PELD group.
CONCLUSIONS
There are no significant differences in clinical efficacy between UBE and PELD, according to the research. However, PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage. As just a result, PELD is better suited in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Topics: Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Hemorrhage; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36181014
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030612