-
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30 to 50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 37 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdiscectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diskectomy; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Manipulation, Spinal; Traction
PubMed: 21711958
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30-50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 49 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdisectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Manipulation, Spinal; Sciatica; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19445754
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Clinical Spine Surgery Dec 2023Systematic Review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGNS
Systematic Review.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
A significant advantage of PELD involves the option to use alternative sedation to general anesthesia (GA). Two options include local anesthesia (LA) and epidural anesthesia (EA). While EA is more involved, it may yield improved pain control and surgical results compared with LA. However, few studies have directly examined outcomes for PELD after LA versus EA, and it remains unknown which technique results in superior outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases examining PELD performed with LA or EA from inception to August 16, 2021 were conducted. All studies reported greater than 6 months of follow-up in addition to PRO data. PROs, including visual analog scale (VAS)-leg/back, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Complications, recurrent disk herniation, durotomy, and reoperation rates, as well as surgical data, were recorded. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining LA or EA.
RESULTS
Fifty-six studies consisting of 4465 patients (366 EA, 4099 LA) were included. Overall complication rate, durotomy rate, length of stay, recurrent disk herniation, and reoperation rates were similar between groups. VAS back/leg and ODI scores were all significantly improved at the first and last follow-up appointments in the LA group. VAS leg and ODI scores were significantly improved at the first and last follow-up appointments in the EA group, but VAS back was not.
CONCLUSIONS
EA can be a safe and feasible alternative to LA, potentially minimizing patient discomfort during PELD. Conclusions are limited by a high level of study bias and heterogeneity. Further investigation is necessary to determine if PELD under EA may have greater short-term PRO benefits compared with LA.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Anesthesia, Local; Lumbar Vertebrae; Endoscopy; Diskectomy; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37348062
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001476 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... 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 -
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 -
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