-
British Journal of Neurosurgery Apr 2022Aplasia of the lumbar pedicle is a rare condition, frequently associated with low back pain. Its recognition is fundamental in the definition of the correct treatment.... (Review)
Review
Aplasia of the lumbar pedicle is a rare condition, frequently associated with low back pain. Its recognition is fundamental in the definition of the correct treatment. We performed a literature review in order to clarify how to best diagnose and treat this rare anatomical condition. A comprehensive literature search for studies published through October 2020 was performed, using the following algorithm: "aplasia" OR "aplastic" OR "hypoplasia" OR "hypoplastic" OR "absent" OR absence" AND "pedicle" AND "lumbar" OR "sacral" OR "lumbosacral". References from reviewed papers were further evaluated for the inclusion of other relevant studies. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review for a total of 24 adult patients. Another case of left L5 pedicle aplasia treated at our hospital has been described and included in the present review. This anatomical condition may be suspected in plain x-Ray, but CT scan 3D reconstructions may help to confirm the diagnosis in equivocal cases. Low-back pain and radiculopathy are the main signs and symptoms. The treatment was described in 14 cases. Eight patients underwent surgical intervention. In cases with spondylolisthesis, fusion surgery was performed with different techniques, obtaining an excellent clinical outcome. Pedicular aplasia is a rare condition that must be recognized in patients with a low back. When it is associated with spondylolisthesis, fusion surgery should be the preferred option.
PubMed: 35393903
DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2022.2057431 -
The International Journal of... Dec 2023Purpose/aim of the study:Central nervous system (CNS), skull, and vertebral metastases from anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are an exceedingly rare entity. We report...
Purpose/aim of the study:Central nervous system (CNS), skull, and vertebral metastases from anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are an exceedingly rare entity. We report the first case of multiple vertebral metastases from a primary anal SCC with the aim of define a target therapeutic strategy. We present the case of a 68-year-old male admitted to our hospital for acute exacerbation chronic low back pain and left L2 radiculopathy. His medical history included the diagnosis of a human papilloma virus related, moderately differentiated anal SCC (cT3N0M0-stage IIB), treated with standard chemoradiotherapy regimen two years earlier. Spinal magnetic resonance imaging revealed an isolated solid lesion of the L2 vertebral body. After the surgical removal, histopathological examination confirmed the diagnosis of moderately differentiated SCC. At 1-month radiological follow-up, two new lesions at the level of T7 to T11 were identified. Additional chemotherapy and radiotherapy for metastatic localization of L2, T7, and T11 were administered. Two-year follow-up demonstrated a radiologically and clinically well-controlled disease. To supplement our case, a systematic literature review on the CNS, skull, and vertebral metastases and their treatments has been performed. Despite several proposed guidelines for the management of vertebral metastases, at present, a universally accepted treatment strategy for vertebral metastases from anal SCC has not been defined. Based on our clinical experience and literature review, in case of vertebral metastases from anal SCC, a prompt and aggressive, local and systemic, and multimodal treatment of the vertebral lesions may be paramount to improve the patient outcomes.
Topics: Male; Humans; Aged; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Spine; Combined Modality Therapy; Radiography; Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PubMed: 35369848
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2022.2052066 -
Global Spine Journal Oct 2022This is a meta-analysis and systematic review of the available literature.
STUDY DESIGN
This is a meta-analysis and systematic review of the available literature.
OBJECTIVE
In the case of severe foraminal stenosis, conducting uncinate process resection (UPR) during ACDF could achieve complete nerve root decompression and significant relief of neurological symptoms for CR. However, there is some controversy regarding its necessity and safety. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of ACDF with UPR and ACDF.
METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, VIP, and CNKI. And the following data items were considered: baseline demographics, efficacy evaluation indicators, radiographic outcome, and surgical details.
RESULTS
10 studies were finally identified, including 746 patients who underwent ACDF with UPR compared to 729 patients who underwent ACDF. The group of ACDF with UPR had statistically longer intraoperative time (95% CI: 4.83, 19.77, = .001) and more intraoperative blood loss (95% CI: 12.23, 17.76, < .001). ACDF with UPR obtained a significantly better improvement of Arm VAS at postoperative first follow-up (95% CI: -1.85, -.14 = .02). There was no significant difference found in improvement of Neck VAS at postoperative latest follow-up (95% CI: -.88, .27, = .30), improvement of Arm VAS at postoperative latest follow-up (95% CI: -.59, -.01, = .05), improvement of NDI (95% CI: -2.34, .33, = .14), JOA (95% CI: -.24, .43, = .56), change of C2-C7 lordosis (95% CI: -.87, 1.33, = .68), C2-C7 SVA (95% CI: -.73, 5.08, = .14), T1 slope (95% CI: -2.25, 1.51, = .70), and fusion rate (95% CI: .83, 1.90 = .29).
CONCLUSION
ACDF with UPR is an effective and necessary surgical method for CR patients with severe foraminal stenosis.
PubMed: 35349779
DOI: 10.1177/21925682221084969 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Jun 2022Foraminal stenosis is commonly investigated with radiological methods in patients with radiating pain in extremities. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Foraminal stenosis is commonly investigated with radiological methods in patients with radiating pain in extremities. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the methodology to assess compression of the nerve roots. This systematic review was performed to identify validated classification systems for foraminal stenosis in the lumbar and cervical spine based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The search included Cochrane, Embase, Medline and PubMed databases going back 30 years and up to September 2021. Three categories of words were used in different variations; foraminal stenosis, MRI and scoring. For inclusion, at least one word from each category had to be present. Articles suggesting classification systems or reporting on their validation were selected for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of 823 articles were identified and all abstracts were reviewed. Subsequently, a full-text review of 64 articles was performed and finally 14 articles were included. A total of three validated classification systems were found for the cervical and lumbar spine. The remaining 11 articles reported on validation or suggested modifications of the classification systems.
CONCLUSION
The three classification systems demonstrated moderate to good reliability and have all been shown feasible in the clinical setting. There is however a need for further studies testing the validity of these classifications in relation to both clinical findings and to surgical outcome data.
Topics: Constriction, Pathologic; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Reproducibility of Results; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 35347421
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07147-5 -
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 -
Global Spine Journal Oct 2022(1) To evaluate the effects of surgery and conservative treatments for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and (2) provide reference for choosing the time and method of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
(1) To evaluate the effects of surgery and conservative treatments for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and (2) provide reference for choosing the time and method of treatment.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials from inception to September 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of surgery or conservative Treatments in Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy (CSR) were selected. The primary outcomes were the neck and arm visual analog scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Secondary outcomes included active range of cervical motion (ROM) and Mental Health. Two reviewers proceeded study selection and quality assessment.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies, which comprised a total of 464 participants were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in lowering Neck-VAS (<3 m: MD = -29.44, 95% CI = (-41.62,-17.27), P < .00001; 3-6 M: MD = -20.97, 95% CI = (-26.36,-15.57), P < .00001; 6 M: MD = -13.40, 95% CI = (-19.39, -7.41), P<.0001; 12 M: MD=-15.53, 95% CI=(-28.38, -2.68), P=.02), Arm-VAS(<3 m: MD = -33.52, 95% CI = (-39.89, -27.16), P < .00001; 3-6 M: MD = -20.97, 95% CI = (-26.36, -15.57), P < .00001; 6 M: MD = -17.52, 95% CI=(-23.94, -11.11), P < .0001; 12 M: MD = -21.91, 95% CI=(-27.09, -16.72), P < .00001) and NDI (<3 m: MD = -8.89, 95% CI = (-11.17, -6.61), P < .00001; 6 M: MD = -5.14, 95% CI = (-7.60, -2.69), P < .0001). No significant difference was observed in NDI at 12-month time point (MD = -5.17, 95% CI = (-12.33, 2.00), P = .16), ROM(MD = 2.91, 95% CI = (-4.51, 10.33), P = .77) and Mental Health (MD = .05, 95% CI=(-.24, .33), P = .74).
CONCLUSION
The 6 included studies that had low risk of bias, providing high-quality evidence for the surgical efficacy of CSR. The evidence indicates that surgical treatment is better than conservative treatment in terms of VAS score and NDI score, and superior to conservative treatment in less than one year. There was no evidence of a difference between surgical and conservative care in ROM and mental health. A small sample study with a follow-up of 5 to 8 years showed that surgical treatment was still better than conservative treatment, but the sample size was small and the results should be carefully interpreted.Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment had a faster onset of response, especially in pain relief, but did not have a significant advantage in range of motion or NDI. This seems to mean that for patients with severe or even unbearable pain, the benefits of surgery as soon as possible will be significant. Although it is not clear whether the short-term risks of surgery are outweighed by the long-term benefits, rapid pain relief is necessary. Conservative treatment (including medical exercise therapy, mechanical cervical tractions, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, pain management education, and cervical collar) once or twice a week for 3 months is beneficial in the long term and avoids the risks of surgery. In consideration of the good natural history of CSR and the relatively good outcome of conservative treatment (although symptom relief is slow), we think that surgery is not necessary for patients who do not need rapid pain relief.
PubMed: 35324370
DOI: 10.1177/21925682221075290 -
Musculoskeletal Science & Practice Jun 2022The passive straight leg raise (SLR) and crossed SLR are recommended tests for lumbar radicular pain. There are no recent reviews of test reliability. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The passive straight leg raise (SLR) and crossed SLR are recommended tests for lumbar radicular pain. There are no recent reviews of test reliability.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize SLR and crossed SLR reliability in patients with suspected lumbar radicular pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
METHOD
MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched for studies published before April 2021 that reported SLR or crossed SLR reliability in patients with low back-related leg pain. Supplemental analyses also included patients with low back pain only. Study selection, risk of bias assessment (QAREL), and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Kappa, intraclass correlation coefficients, and smallest detectable difference (SDD) quantified reliability. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Confidence in the evidence was determined by applying GRADE principles.
RESULTS/FINDINGS
Fifteen studies met selection criteria. One-hundred-eighty-nine participants had low back-related leg pain. Four-hundred-thirty-nine were included in supplemental analyses. Meta-analyses showed at least fair inter-rater reliability when a positive SLR required provocation of lower extremity symptoms or pain. SLR reliability was at least moderate when testing included structural differentiation (e.g., ankle dorsiflexion). A low prevalence of positive crossed SLR tests led to wide-ranging reliability estimates. Confidence in the evidence for identifying a positive SLR or crossed SLR was moderate to very low. SDD values for different raters measuring SLR range of motion ranged from 13 to 20°.
CONCLUSIONS
Reliability data support testing SLR with structural differentiation manoeuvres. Crossed SLR reliability data are inconclusive. Measurement error likely prohibits using SLR range of motion for clinical decision-making.
Topics: Humans; Leg; Low Back Pain; Lumbosacral Region; Range of Motion, Articular; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 35245880
DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102529 -
European Spine Journal : Official... May 2022No clear consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is most cost-effective for treating cervical degenerative disk disease (CDDD). One of the most common... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
No clear consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is most cost-effective for treating cervical degenerative disk disease (CDDD). One of the most common treatment options is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) was developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of clinical adjacent segment pathology and associated additional surgeries by preserving motion. This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression techniques used to treat radiculopathy and/or myelopathy caused by CDDD.
METHODS
The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit, NHS-EED and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if healthcare costs and utility or effectivity measurements were mentioned.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included out of the 1327 identified studies. In 9 of the 13 studies directly comparing ACDA and ACDF, ACDA was the most cost-effective technique, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranging from $2.900/QALY to $98.475/QALY. There was great heterogeneity between the costs of due to different in- and exclusion criteria of costs and charges, cost perspective, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate.
CONCLUSION
The majority of studies report ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in comparison with ACDF. The lack of uniform literature impedes any solid conclusions to be drawn. There is a need for high-quality cost-effectiveness research and uniformity in the conduct, design and reporting of economic evaluations concerning the treatment of CDDD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020207553 (04.10.2020).
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35224672
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07137-7 -
World Neurosurgery May 2022The emergence of C8 radiculopathy is a known complication following cervicothoracic osteotomies. However, the clinical profile of C8 radiculopathy is not well...
BACKGROUND
The emergence of C8 radiculopathy is a known complication following cervicothoracic osteotomies. However, the clinical profile of C8 radiculopathy is not well understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of C8 radiculopathy after cervicothoracic osteotomies and to form a clinical profile describing the characteristics through a systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
An electronic database search for full-text English articles was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The search yielded results on indications for cervicothoracic osteotomies, surgical approaches, mean follow-up time, and significant complications, including C8 radiculopathy.
RESULTS
Our literature search yielded 2135 articles, of which 12 qualified to be included in the analysis. The 12 articles comprised 451 patients undergoing various osteotomy approaches. The mean age of subjects was 51.0 years (range, 11.4-63.2 years), and the majority of patients were male (66%, n = 298). Ankylosing spondylitis was the most frequent indication for surgery (44.8%, n = 202). The number of patients with postoperative C8 radiculopathy was found to decrease over time (1997-2020) by showing statistical significance (r = -0.65, P = 0.021).
CONCLUSIONS
Of the 451 patients included in this study, 53 had C8 radiculopathy (11.8% of the total patient population). Moreover, the rate of C8 radiculopathy decreased over time in a statistically significant manner. An understanding of the factors associated with the incidence of C8 radiculopathy is essential for future improvement of patient outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteotomy; Postoperative Period; Radiculopathy; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Young Adult
PubMed: 35192973
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.02.066 -
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience :... Apr 2022Posterior epidural intervertebral disc migration and sequestration (PEIMS) is a rare and debilitating complication of degenerative disc disease. Radiological... (Review)
Review
Posterior epidural intervertebral disc migration and sequestration (PEIMS) is a rare and debilitating complication of degenerative disc disease. Radiological differential diagnosis is often challenging, complicating the accurate planning of appropriate treatment strategies. We systematically reviewed the literature on PEIMS, focusing on clinical-radiological features and available treatments. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched to include studies reporting clinical data of patients with PEIMS. Clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, and functional outcomes were analyzed. We included 82 studies comprising 157 patients. Median age was 54 years (range, 19-91). PEIMSs occurred spontaneously (49.7%) or acutely in patients with underlying progressive degenerative disc disease (50.3%). The most common symptoms were lower-back pain (77.1%) and radiculopathy (66.2%), mainly involving the L5 nerve root (43.8%). PEIMSs were mostly detected at MRI (93%) and/or CT (7%), frequently located in the lumbar spine (81.5%). Median maximum PEIMS diameter was 2.4 cm (range, 1.2-5.0). Surgical debulking was completed in 150 patients (95.5%), sometimes coupled with decompressive laminectomy (65%) or hemilaminectomy (19.1%). Median follow-up time was 3 months (range, 0.5-36.0). Post-treatment symptomatic improvement was reported in 153 patients (97.5%), with total recovery in 118 (75.2%). All 7 patients (4.5%) who received conservative non-surgical management had total clinical recovery at ≤ 3 months follow-ups. PEIMS is a challenging entity that may severely quality-of-life in patients with degenerative disc disease. Surgical removal represents the gold standard to improve patient's functional status. Spine fusion and conservative strategies proved to be effective in some cases.
Topics: Epidural Space; Humans; Intervertebral Disc; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Middle Aged
PubMed: 35152147
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2022.01.039