-
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 -
Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2023[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1155/2022/5360277.].
Retracted: Short-Term Postoperative Pain and Function of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Single-Segment Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1155/2022/5360277.].
PubMed: 37946825
DOI: 10.1155/2023/9869037 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Jan 2024Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) poses surgical challenges due to longstanding disease and adherence of herniated disc to the surrounding neural structures. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) poses surgical challenges due to longstanding disease and adherence of herniated disc to the surrounding neural structures. The data regarding outcomes after surgery for CLDH are limited. This review was conducted to analyse the surgical techniques, perioperative findings and the postoperative clinical outcomes after surgery for CLDH.
METHODS
PRISMA guidelines were followed whilst conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis. The literature review was conducted on 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL). After thorough screening of all search results, 9 studies were shortlisted from which data were extracted and statistical analysis was done. Pooled analysis was done to ascertain the perioperative and postoperative outcomes after surgery for CLDH. Additional comparative analysis was done compared to CLDH with non-calcified lumbar disc herniation (NCLDH) cases.
RESULTS
We included 9 studies published between 2016 and 2022 in our review, 8 of these were retrospective. A total of 356 cases of CLDH were evaluated in these studies with a male preponderance (56.4%). Mean operative time was significantly lower in NCLDH cases compared to CLDH cases. The mean estimated blood loss showed a negative correlation with the percentage of males. Satisfactory clinical outcomes were observed in majority of patients. The risk of bias of the included studies was moderate to high.
CONCLUSION
Surgical difficulties in CLDH cases leads to increase in operative time compared to NCLDH. Good clinical outcomes can be obtained with careful planning; the focus of surgery should be on decompression of the neural structures rather than disc removal.
Topics: Humans; Male; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Lumbar Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous
PubMed: 37659048
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07914-y -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
World Neurosurgery Dec 2022Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery for spinal diseases has been increasing in popularity because of its favorable outcomes. The goal of this systemic...
Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy with Other Surgical Technics: A Systemic Review of Indications and Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy from the Current Literature.
OBJECTIVE
Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery for spinal diseases has been increasing in popularity because of its favorable outcomes. The goal of this systemic review is to analyze the status of outcomes and complications in lumbar disc herniation during UBE discectomy.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and OVID databases published until June 30, 2021, was performed. The outcomes of interest were indications, operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in our research. UBE surgery for lumbar stenosis was excluded. A total of 230 patients with lumbar disc herniation were enrolled in the 7 selected studies. The mean operative time was 74.4 minutes, and the mean length of hospital stay was 4.5 days. Mean incidence of complications reported in the 7 articles was 6.2%. UBE showed shorter hospital stays than did microdiscectomy, no significant differences of Oswestry Disability Index or visual analog scale scores, and good recovery rate among other discectomy techniques (microdiscectomy, full endoscopic transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy) at 1 month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Even with the small number of studies and reports analyzed, biases were the main limitation of this analysis; overall, the clinical outcomes and complication rates associated with UBE discectomy were relatively good. It is clear that UBE discectomy is a good treatment choice for lumbar disc herniation, but to prevent unique UBE surgery complications, a clear understanding of the surgical procedures and careful efforts to overcome the learning curve are necessary.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lumbosacral Region; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36527214
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.06.153 -
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