-
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 -
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 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Nov 2021Intraoperative imaging in minimally invasive spinal surgeries is associated with significant radiation exposure to surgeons, which overtime can lead to serious health... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative imaging in minimally invasive spinal surgeries is associated with significant radiation exposure to surgeons, which overtime can lead to serious health hazards including malignancy. In this study, the authors conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of navigation assisted fluoroscopy methods on radiation exposure to the surgeon in minimally invasive spine surgeries, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy/percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy versus minimally invasive spine transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PELD/PETD versus MIS-TLIF).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using PUBMED/MEDLINE on 20th July, 2020. Inclusion criteria were applied according to study design, surgical technique, spinal region, and language. Data extracted included lumbar segment, average operation time (min), fluoroscopic time (s), and radiation dose (μSV), efficacy of modified navigation versus conventional techniques; on reducing operation, fluoroscopy times and effective radiation dose.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies (ten prospectives, and five retrospectives) were included for quantitative analysis. PELD recorded a shorter operation time (by 126.3min, p<0.001) and fluoroscopic time (by 22.9s, p=0.3) than MIS-TLIF. The highest radiation dose/case (μSV) for both techniques were recorded at the surgeon's: finger, chest, neck and eye. The effective dose for MIS-TLIF was 30μSV higher than PELD. Modified navigation techniques recorded a shorter operation time (by 15.9min, p=0.3); fluoroscopy time (by 289.8s, p=0.3); effective radiation dose (by 169.5μSV, p=0.3) than conventional fluoroscopy methods.
DISCUSSION
This systematic literature review showed that although navigation assisted fluoroscopy techniques are superior to conventional methods in minimising radiation exposure, lack of statistical significance warrants future randomised controlled trials, to solidify their efficacy in reducing radiation related hazards.
Topics: Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Radiation Exposure; Spinal Fusion; Surgeons; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33333283
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102795 -
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 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Nov 2022Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely accepted as a gold standard for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). However, there was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely accepted as a gold standard for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). However, there was insufficient evidence to compare the changes in the cervical alignment with different fusion devices in a long follow-up period. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the radiologic outcomes and loss of correction (LOC) in cervical alignment of Zero-profile (ZP) device versus cage-plate (CP) construct for the treatment of CSM.
METHODS
Retrospective and prospective studies directly comparing the outcomes between the ZP device and CP construct in ACDF were included. Data extraction was conducted and study quality was assessed independently. A meta-analysis was carried out by using fixed effects and random effects models to calculate the odds ratio and mean difference in the ZP group and the CP group.
RESULTS
Fourteen trials with a total of 1067 participants were identified. ZP group had a lower rate of postoperative dysphagia at the 2- or 3-month and 6-month follow-up than CP group, and ZP group was associated with a decreased ASD rate at the last follow-up when compared with the CP group. The pooled data of radiologic outcomes revealed that there was no significant difference in postoperative and last follow-up IDH. However, postoperative and last follow-up cervical Cobb angle was significantly smaller in the ZP group when compared with the CP group. In subgroup analyses, when the length of the last follow-up was less than 3 years, there was no difference between two groups. However, as the last follow-up time increased, cervical Cobb angle was significantly lower in the ZP group when compared with the CP group.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of our analysis, the application of ZP device in ACDF had a lower rate of postoperative dysphagia and ASD than CP construct. Both devices were safe in anterior cervical surgeries, and they had similar efficacy in correcting radiologic outcomes. However, as the last follow-up time increased, ZP group showed greater changes cervical alignment. In order to clarify the specific significance of LOC, additional large clinical studies with longer follow-up period are required.
Topics: Humans; Deglutition Disorders; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Spinal Fusion; Diskectomy; Spinal Cord Diseases
PubMed: 36434715
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03400-1 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022In minimally invasive spinal surgery, the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
In minimally invasive spinal surgery, the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) shows effective results, but which is more effective is controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBED versus MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by a systematic review and meta-analysis, so as to provide reference for the promotion of UBED in clinical practice.
METHODS
The multiple databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, Chinese BioMedical Database, and Wanfang Database were used to search for the relevant studies. Review Manager 5.4 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the overall pooled effect. Subgroup analysis, forest plots, funnel plots and Egger's test for the articles included were also conducted.
RESULTS
Three randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were finally retrieved, these studies included 685 and 829 patients in the UBED and MED groups, respectively. There were no differences in terms of operation time (MD = -0.92, P =0.72), estimated blood loss (MD = -26.31, P =0.08), complications (MD =0.81, P =0.38) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (P >0.05 in four subgroup) between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) score of back pain in the UBED group was better than MED group only at 6 months (MD = -0.23, P =0.006) after operation, the VAS score of leg pain in the UBED group was better than that of MED group at 3 mouths (MD = -0.22, P =0.002) and 6 months (MD = -0.24, P =0.006) after operation, the UBED group had a less postoperative length of stay than the MED group (MD = -1.85, P <0.001). The bias analysis showed that there was no potential publication bias in the included literature.
CONCLUSION
This study showed that compared with MED, UBED has the advantages of short hospital stay and good short-term curative effect, but there is no significant difference in long-term efficacy and safety, they can be replaced by each other in clinical application.
Topics: Diskectomy; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 36188105
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7667463 -
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 -
Turkish Neurosurgery 2024To assess, and to compare the efficacy of anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF).
AIM
To assess, and to compare the efficacy of anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Major databases, registries, and other relevant material were screened for prospective trials directly comparing AECD and ACDF. No restrictions were imposed. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to high heterogeneity.
RESULTS
After screening a total of 1339 articles, 2 studies enrolling 225 patients were included. One of these is a randomizedcontrolled- trial, including 120 patients, with a 14% lost to follow-up, showing no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the neck/arm and the North American Spine Society criteria regarding pain/neurological status. Radiological follow-up showed no adjacent-segment disease, with both groups presenting a statistically non-significant progression of a pre-existing adjacent-disc degeneration, and no difference in kyphosis. Recurrence was registered in 7.4% and 6.1% of patients who underwent AECD and ACDF, respectively. No statistically apparent differences in complications were observed. The second is a cohort study, including 135 patients with a 14.8% lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference was found in clinical outcomes assessed using the VAS of the neck/arm and the neck disability index. No radiological data were provided. Recurrence was reported in 4% and 2% of patients in the AECD and ACDF group, respectively. No remarkable differences in complications were reported. Both studies reported that the surgical time was statistically shorter in AECD.
CONCLUSION
A definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. Single-level AECD seems to have results equivalent to ACDF, presenting even some benefits. Technical limitations combined with required surgical skills and experience should be considered. We recommend cautious employment in anticipation of future updates.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy; Spinal Fusion; Cervical Vertebrae; Endoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
PubMed: 38650569
DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.44424-23.2 -
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 -
Medicine Jun 2020To systematically analyze the differences of complications between percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically analyze the differences of complications between percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, and Wanfang Data for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 15 articles with 1156 study subjects were included, with 550 patients in PTED group and 606 patients in PIED group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that postoperative dysesthesia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-1.13), nerve root injury (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.30-5.02), surgical site wound complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.29-5.40), recurrence (OR = 1.09, 95% CI, 0.54-2.21), conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.33-4.81), incomplete decompression (OR = 1.62, 95% CI, 0.43-6.09), and total complication (OR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.49-1.06) showed no significant differences between the PTED group and the PIED group, while the PTED group had significantly better results in dural tear compared with the PIED group (OR = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.13-0.79).
CONCLUSIONS
Dural tear was significantly less occured in PTED compared with PIED. The postoperative dysesthesia, nerve root injury, surgical site wound complications, recurrence, conversion to open surgery, incomplete decompression, and total complication did not differ significantly between PTED and PIED in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Topics: Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 32569205
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020709