-
World Neurosurgery Jun 2024The optimal choice for fusion strategy in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) remains an unresolved issue. This study aims to perform a network meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The optimal choice for fusion strategy in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) remains an unresolved issue. This study aims to perform a network meta-analysis and systematic review of fusion rate and complication rate of various fusion strategies used in ACDF.
METHODS
This study followed Prisma guidelines, and we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to November 11, 2022, for RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of fusion modalities in ACDF. The primary outcome was the fusion rate and complication rate. The PROSPERO number is CRD42022374440.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis identified 26 RCT studies with 1789 patients across 15 fusion methods. The cage with autograft + plating (CATG + P) showed the highest fusion rate, surpassing other methods like iliac crest autograft (ICAG) and artificial bone graft (AFG). The stand-alone cage with autograft (SATG) had the second highest fusion rate. Regarding complication rate, the cage with artificial bone graft (CAFG) had the highest rate, more than other methods. The ICAG had a higher complication rate compared to ICAG + P, AFG, SAFG, SATG, and CALG. The SATG performed well in both fusion and complication rate.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we conducted the first network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of various fusion methods in ACDF. Our findings suggest that SATG, with superior performance in fusion rate and complication rate, may be the optimal choice for ACDF. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously until additional research provides further evidence.
PubMed: 38942142
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.06.117 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Apr 2024This study aimed to assess the impact of full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (FETD) on clinical outcomes and complications in both obese and non-obese patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Comparative outcomes of obese and non-obese patients with lumbar disc herniation receiving full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the impact of full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (FETD) on clinical outcomes and complications in both obese and non-obese patients presenting with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
METHODS
A systematic search of relevant literature was conducted across various primary databases until November 18, 2023. Operative time and hospitalization were evaluated. Clinical outcomes included preoperative and postoperative assessments of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, conducted to delineate improvements at 3 months postoperatively and during the final follow-up, respectively. Complications were also documented.
RESULTS
Four retrospective studies meeting inclusion criteria provided a collective cohort of 258 patients. Obese patients undergoing FETD experienced significantly longer operative times compared to non-obese counterparts (P = 0.0003). Conversely, no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in hospitalization duration, improvement of VAS for back and leg pain scores at 3 months postoperatively and final follow-up, improvement of ODI at 3 months postoperatively and final follow-up. Furthermore, the overall rate of postoperative complications was higher in the obese group (P = 0.02). The obese group demonstrated a total incidence of complications of 17.17%, notably higher than the lower rate of 9.43% observed in the non-obese group.
CONCLUSION
The utilization of FETD for managing LDH in individuals with obesity is associated with prolonged operative times and a higher total complication rate compared to their non-obese counterparts. Nevertheless, it remains a safe and effective surgical intervention for treating herniated lumbar discs in the context of obesity.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Obesity; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Endoscopy; Diskectomy; Postoperative Complications; Operative Time; Pain Measurement; Disability Evaluation; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38654321
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07455-5 -
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 -
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 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Jun 2024This study aimed to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) with microdiscectomy (MD) for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) with microdiscectomy (MD) for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science databases from database inception to April 2023 to identify studies comparing UBED and MD for treating LDH. This study evaluated the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Macnab scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complications, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Macnab scores at various pre- and post-surgery stages. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 9 distinct studies with a total of 1001 patients. The VAS scores for low back pain showed no significant differences between the groups at postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.09) and final follow-up (P = 0.13); however, the UBED group had lower VAS scores at postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores at baseline (P = 0.05), postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.24), postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.78), or at the final follow-up (P = 0.43). ODI comparisons revealed no significant differences preoperatively (P = 0.83), at postoperative 1 week (P = 0.47), or postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.13), and the UBED group demonstrated better ODI at the final follow-up (P = 0.03). The UBED group also exhibited a shorter mean operative time (P = 0.03), significantly shorter hospital stay (P < 0.00001), and less estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002). Complications and modified MacNab scores showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.56 and P = 0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSION
The evidence revealed no significant differences in efficacy between UBED and MD for LDH treatment. However, UBED may offer potential benefits such as shorter hospital stays, lower estimated blood loss, and comparable complication rates.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Endoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Microsurgery
PubMed: 38388729
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-08116-2 -
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 -
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 -
Child's Nervous System : ChNS :... May 2024Hirayama disease, a rare cervical myelopathy in children and young adults, leads to progressive upper limb weakness and muscle loss. Non-invasive external cervical... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Hirayama disease, a rare cervical myelopathy in children and young adults, leads to progressive upper limb weakness and muscle loss. Non-invasive external cervical orthosis has been shown to prevent further neurologic decline; however, this treatment modality has not been successful at restoring neurologic and motor function, especially in long standing cases with significant weakness. The pathophysiology remains not entirely understood, complicating standardized operative guidelines; however, some studies report favorable outcomes with internal fixation. We report a successful surgically treated case of pediatric Hirayama disease, supplemented by a systematic review and collation of reported cases in the literature.
METHODS
A review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Full-length articles were included if they reported clinical data regarding the treatment of at least one patient with Hirayama disease and the neurologic outcome of that treatment. Articles were excluded if they did not provide information on treatment outcomes, were abstract-only publications, or were published in languages other than English.
RESULTS
Of the fifteen articles reviewed, 63 patients were described, with 59 undergoing surgery. This encompassed both anterior and posterior spinal procedures and 1 hand tendon transfer. Fifty-five patients, including one from our institution, showed improvement post-treatment. Eleven of these patients were under 18 years old.
CONCLUSION
Hirayama disease is an infrequent yet impactful cervical myelopathy with limited high-quality evidence available for optimal treatment. The current literature supports surgical decompression and stabilization as promising interventions. However, comprehensive research is crucial for evolving diagnosis and treatment paradigms.
Topics: Young Adult; Child; Humans; Adolescent; Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Spinal Cord Diseases; Treatment Outcome; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 38231402
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-024-06281-3 -
Neurosurgical Review Jan 2024Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a universal surgical technique used to achieve lumbar fusion. Traditionally static cages have been used to restore the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Exploring the differences in radiologic and clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with single- and bi-planar expandable cages: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a universal surgical technique used to achieve lumbar fusion. Traditionally static cages have been used to restore the disc space after discectomy. However, newer technological advancements have brought up uniplanar expandable cages (UECs) and more recently bi-planar expandable cages (BECs), the latter with the hope of reducing the events of intra- or postoperative subsidence compared to UECs. However, since BECs are relatively new, there has been no comparison to UECs. In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review, we sought to identify all Medline and Embase reports that used UECs and/or BECs for TLIF or posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Primary outcomes included subsidence and fusion rates. Secondary outcomes included VAS back pain score, VAS leg pain score, ODI, and other complications. A meta-analysis of proportions was the main method used to evaluate the extracted data. Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. A total of 15 studies were pooled in the analysis, 3 of which described BECs. There were no studies directly comparing the UECs to BECs. A statistically significant difference in fusion rates was found between UECs and BECs (p = 0.04). Due to lack of direct comparative literature, definitive conclusions cannot be made about differences between UECs and BECs. The analysis showed a statistically higher fusion rate for BECs versus UECs, but this should be interpreted cautiously. No other statistically significant differences were found. As more direct comparative studies emerge, future meta-analyses may clarify potential differences between these cage types.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lumbosacral Region; Pain; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 38191751
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-023-02277-w -
Spine Apr 2024A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and comparative retrospective cohort studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and comparative retrospective cohort studies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to compare the 10-year outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
ACDF is the gold standard for the treatment of CDDD. However, the loss of motion at the operative level may accelerate adjacent segment disease (ASD). The preservation of motion with CDA attempts to prevent this complication of cervical fusion. Short-term and mid-term data reveal comparable results for CDA versus ACDF; however, long-term results are unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to determine if CDA had improved outcomes compared with ACDF at 10-year follow-up. PubMed and Web of Science database searches through 2023 were performed to identify randomized controlled trials and comparative retrospective cohort studies involving treatment of one-level or two-level CDDD.
RESULTS
Six studies were eligible for analysis. CDA had significantly improved neck disability index and visual analog scale scores but lower Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores compared to ACDF at 10-year follow-up ( P < 0.05). None of these results met minimal clinically important differences. CDA had significantly fewer secondary surgeries and adverse events compared to ACDF ( P <0.05). There were no significant differences in neurological success.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors found that significantly fewer secondary surgeries and adverse events were seen after CDA than after ACDF at 10-year follow-up. CDA had statistically, but not clinically, improved neck disability index and visual analog scale scores but lower Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores in comparison to ACDF. CDA was not significantly different from ACDF in terms of a successful neurological outcome.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Diskectomy; Neck; Cervical Vertebrae; Arthroplasty; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38018778
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004887