-
Pain Physician Apr 2006Chronic low back pain is a major social, economic, and healthcare issue in the United States. Various techniques are utilized in managing discogenic pain, with or... (Review)
Review
Chronic low back pain is a major social, economic, and healthcare issue in the United States. Various techniques are utilized in managing discogenic pain, with or without disc herniation. Percutaneous techniques are rapidly replacing traditional open surgery in operations requiring discectomy, decompression, and fusion. The percutaneous access to the disc was first used in the 1950s to biopsy the disc with needles. Percutaneous access to the disc using endoscopic techniques was developed in the 1970s. Technical advances in the use of intradiscal therapies led to the development of intradiscal electrothermal annuloplasty (IDET), DISC Nucleoplasty, and DeKompressor, along with laser-assisted, endoscopic, and Nucleotome disc decompressions. The indications for percutaneous lumbar disc decompression include low back and lower extremity pain caused by a symptomatic disc. Internal disc disruptions and disc herniations are common causes of low back and/or lower extremity pain which may become chronic, if not diagnosed and treated. Annular tears lead to migration of the nuclear material and deranged internal architecture. In the chronically damaged intervertebral disc, leakage of nuclear material from annular tears can initiate, promote, and continue the inflammatory process and delay or stop recovery of vital remaining intradiscal tissue. The most often stated goal of central nuclear decompression is to lower the pressure in the nucleus and to allow room for the herniated fragment to implode inward. Provocative discography prior to percutaneous lumbar disc decompression is recommended. Percutaneous disc decompression may result in a small number of complications but occasionally, these could be serious.
Topics: Decompression, Surgical; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; History, 20th Century; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae
PubMed: 16703975
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Aug 2022Implant subsidence is an undesirable effect after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We investigated the relation between the rate of implant subsidence and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Implant subsidence is an undesirable effect after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We investigated the relation between the rate of implant subsidence and the ratio of the implant surface area to the surface area of the adjacent bone.
METHODS
We operated 170 disc spaces in a group of 104 patients. Two types of implants were used: 1) PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages and 2) titanium-coated (TC) PEEK cages. Patients were randomised to receive a specific implant using a randomisation table. All implants had a surface area of 1.61 cm. Based on computed tomography images, bone surface areas were calculated for vertebral bodies immediately adjacent to the interbody implants. The implant-to-bone surface ratio was then calculated for each disc space. Implant subsidence was assessed over 12 months of follow-up, and associations between implant subsidence, the type of implant, and the implant-to-bone surface ratio were investigated.
RESULTS
Twelve months after the surgery, computed tomography was performed on 86 patients (144 disc spaces). Furthermore, in 166 disc spaces and 102 patients, conventional radiographs were obtained. Subsidence was observed in 21% of the examined intervertebral spaces, and it was more frequently associated with higher values of bone surface area and lower values of the implant-to-bone surface ratio. The type of implant (PEEK vs TC-PEEK cages) did not significantly influence the rate of implant subsidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Implant subsidence was significantly related to the value of a coefficient representing the ratio of the implant's surface area to the bone surface area of the adjacent vertebral bodies, with subsidence occurring significantly more rarely for coefficient values ≥ 0.37.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Ketones; Polyethylene Glycols; Prostheses and Implants; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35927645
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05698-8 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2022Studies on outcomes after four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are limited in the literature. The purpose of this study was to report on clinical... (Review)
Review
Studies on outcomes after four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are limited in the literature. The purpose of this study was to report on clinical outcomes and revision rates following four-level ACDF. Patients operated with four-level ACDF were identified in a prospectively accrued single institution database. Outcome scores included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain. Reoperation rates were determined. Any complications were identified from a review of the medical records. Twenty-eight patients with a minimum of 12 months follow up were included in the analysis. The mean age at surgery was 58.5 years. The median radiographic follow up time was 23 (IQR = 16-31.25) months. Cervical lordosis was significantly improved postoperatively (- 1 to - 13, p < 0.001). At the median 24 (IQR = 17.75-39.50) months clinical follow up time, there was a significant improvement in the NDI (38 to 28, p = 0.046) and VAS for neck pain scores (5.1 to 3, p = 0.012). The most common perioperative complication was transient dysphagia (32%) followed by hoarseness (14%). Four (14%) patients required revision surgery at a median 11.5 (IQR = 2-51) months postoperatively. The results of this study indicate that patients who undergo four-level ACDF have a significant improvement in clinical outcomes at median 24 months follow up. Stand-alone four-level ACDF is a valid option for the management of complex cervical degenerative conditions.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35351960
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09389-1 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jul 2023: Degenerative disk disease is a widespread chronic condition that causes diskogenic pain. Diskogenic pain can be treated with various therapy methods. Disc-FX is a... (Review)
Review
: Degenerative disk disease is a widespread chronic condition that causes diskogenic pain. Diskogenic pain can be treated with various therapy methods. Disc-FX is a revolutionary, minimally invasive, percutaneous nucleo-annuloplasty method that combines manual diskectomy with nuclear and annular remodeling using radiofrequency ablation to relieve diskogenic pain. In this study, the technical features, clinical outcomes, and complications of Disc-FX are summarized. : A comprehensive literature review was performed. By exploring several databases, we collected studies on Disc-FX for treating diskogenic pain. The outcomes included perioperative data, clinical results, and complications. : In the 15 studies included, data from 570 patients were collected. L4-L5 was the most frequently operated level, and most cases underwent single-level procedures. The follow-up period for these patients ranged from 2 months to 24 months. One study reported a procedure time between 35 and 60 min, whereas the remaining studies reported a procedure time of less than 30 min. The mean visual analog scale score decreased from 7.22 preoperatively to 1.81 at the final follow-up. The mean numerical rating scale score decreased from 6.98 preoperatively to 3.9 at the final follow-up. The mean Japanese Orthopaedic Association score improved from 16.26 preoperatively to 25.88 in the final follow-up. The mean Oswestry Disability Index score decreased from 35.37 preoperatively to 14.66 at the final follow-up. The mean satisfaction rate (based on the Macnab criteria) was 87.6% (range, 78.4-95.2%). The total incidence of postoperative transient pain was 8.77% (50/570) after nucleo-annuloplasty using Disc-FX, and recurrence was 1.58% (9/570). : According to our comprehensive evaluation, using percutaneous nucleo-annuloplasty for treating lumbar diskogenic diseases provided considerable pain alleviation and improved functional outcomes with fewer complications. Disc-FX is a safe and effective procedure that is a good treatment option for patients with diskogenic pain.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Diskectomy; Low Back Pain; Chronic Disease; Radiofrequency Ablation; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies; Endoscopy
PubMed: 37512102
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59071291 -
BMJ Open Jul 2014The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating two-adjacent-level cervical spondylosis myelopathy (CSM).
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of the two anterior fusion methods was conducted. The electronic databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, CNKI, WANFANG DATA and CQVIP were searched. Quality assessment of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies criteria. Pooled risk ratios of dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean differences (SMDs) of continuous outcomes were generated. Using the χ(2) and I(2) tests, the statistical heterogeneity was assessed. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed.
PARTICIPANTS
Nine eligible trials with a total of 631 patients and a male-to-female ratio of 1.38:1 were included in this meta-analysis.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials that adopted ACCF and ACDF to treat two-adjacent-level CSM were included.
RESULTS
No significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding hospital stay, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, total cervical range of motion (ROM), fusion ROM, fusion rate, adjacent-level ossification and complications, while ACDF had significantly less bleeding (SMD=1.14, 95% CI (0.74 to 1.53)); a shorter operation time (SMD=1.13, 95% CI (0.82 to 1.45)); greater cervical lordosis, total cervical (SMD=-2.95, 95% CI (-4.79 to -1.12)) and fused segment (SMD=-2.24, 95% CI (-3.31 to -1.17)); higher segmental height (SMD=-0.68, 95% CI (-1.03 to -0.34)) and less graft subsidence (SMD=0.40, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.75)) compared to ACCF.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggested that ACDF has more advantages compared to ACCF. However, additional high-quality RCTs and a longer follow-up duration are needed.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Female; Humans; Male; Spinal Cord Diseases; Spinal Fusion; Spondylosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25031189
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004581 -
Safety of outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European Journal of Medical Research Aug 2016Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries and neurosurgical procedures performed to treat a variety of disorders in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries and neurosurgical procedures performed to treat a variety of disorders in the cervical spine. Over the last several years, ACDF has been done in the outpatient setting for less invasive approaches and exposures, as well as modified anesthetic and pain management techniques. Despite the fact that it may be innocuous in other parts of the body, complications in the spine can literally be fatal. The objective of this article is to evaluate the safety of outpatient surgery compared with inpatient surgery in the cervical spine for adult patients.
METHODS
The multiple databases including Pubmed, Springer, EMBASE, EBSCO and China Journal Full-text Database were adopted to search for the relevant studies in English or Chinese. Full-text articles involving to the safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery were selected. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Chi-square tests were conducted with SPSS 20.0 software.
RESULTS
Finally, 12 articles were included. The results of meta-analysis suggested that in the articles included, no death occurred, and compared with inpatient surgery, outpatient surgery has a similar risk (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI [0.98, 1.00], P = 0.02; P for heterogeneity = 0.47, I (2) = 0 %). An I (2) value of 0 % indicates no heterogeneity observed. All complications were occurred in both outpatients and inpatients. Among the studies selected, after the outpatient spine surgery, the highest incidences of complication were dysphagia (18/29) and hematoma (4/29). Compared with the overall complication rate in inpatient group, no significant difference was observed (x (2) = 1.820, P = 0.177).
CONCLUSION
In this study, outpatient surgery has a similar risk with inpatient surgery, and no difference of morbidity between outpatient and inpatient was found. Because of short operative time and moderate postoperative pain, we believe that outpatient cervical spine surgery is a safe and convenient alternative procedure, which also decrease the cost of care. Besides, postoperative complications including dysphagia and hematoma should be noticed.
Topics: Adult; Cervical Vertebrae; Deglutition Disorders; Diskectomy; Humans; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 27582129
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-016-0229-6 -
Pain Physician Nov 2023Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common complication following posterior disc decompression and fusion surgery. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal and Interlaminar Approaches in Treating Adjacent Segment Disease Following Lumbar Decompression Surgery: A Clinical Retrospective Study.
BACKGROUND
Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common complication following posterior disc decompression and fusion surgery. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery (PELD) has been used to treat ASD through either a transforaminal or interlaminar approach. However, to our limited knowledge there are no reports comparing the 2 approaches for treating ASD.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate clinical outcomes of PELD in treating ASD and comparing the surgical results and complications between the 2 approaches. This may be helpful for spinal surgeons when decision-making ASD treatment.
STUDY DESIGN
A clinical retrospective study.
SETTING
This study was conducted at the Department of Orthopedics of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University.
METHODS
From January 2015 through December 2019, a total of 68 patients with ASD who underwent PELD after lumbar posterior decompression with fusion surgery were included in this study. The patients were divided into a percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression (PETD) group and a percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar decompression (PEID) group according to the approach used. The demographic characteristics, radiographic and clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded in both groups through a chart review.
RESULTS
Of the 68 patients, 40 underwent PEID and 28 patients underwent PETD. Compared with their preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, all patients had significant postoperative improvement at 3 months, 6 months, one year and at the latest follow-up. There were no significant statistical differences in the VAS and ODI scores between PETD and PEID groups with a P value > 0.05. There was a significant statistical difference in the average fluoroscopy times between the PETD and PEID groups with a P value = 0.000. Revision surgery occurred in 8 patients: 6 patients who underwent PETD and 2 patients who underwent PEID. The revision rate showed a significant statistical difference between the 2 approaches with a P value = 0.039.
LIMITATIONS
Firstly, the number of patients included in this study was small. More patients are needed in a further study. Secondly, the follow-up time was limited in this study. There is still no conclusion about whether the primary decompression with instruments will increase the reoperation rate after a PELD, and a longer follow-up is needed in the future. Thirdly, this study was a clinical retrospective study. Randomized or controlled trials are needed in the future in order to achieve a higher level of evidence. Fourthly, there were debates about PELD approach choices for ASDs, which may affect the comparison results between PETD and PEID. In our study, the approaches were mainly determined by the level and types of disc herniation, and the surgeons' preference. More patients with an ASD with different levels and types of disc herniation and surgical approaches are needed in the future to eliminate these biases.
CONCLUSION
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery is a feasible option for ASD following lumbar decompression surgery with instruments. Compared with PETD, PEID seems to be a better approach to treat symptomatic ASDs.
Topics: Humans; Decompression; Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37976490
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Spine Mar 2017Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this study was to (i) assess the risk of neurological injury after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) with and without intraoperative neuromonitoring (ION) and (ii) evaluate differences in the sensitivity and specificity of ION for ACSS.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Although ION is used to detect impending neurological injuries in deformity surgery, it's utility in ACSS remains controversial.
METHODS
A systematic search of multiple medical reference databases was conducted for studies on ION use for ACSS. Studies that included posterior cervical surgery were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Outcome measure was postoperative neurological injury.
RESULTS
The search yielded 10 studies totaling 26,357 patients. The weighted risk of neurological injury after ACSS was 0.64% (0.23-1.25). The weighted risk of neurological injury was 0.20% (0.05-0.47) for ACDFs compared with 1.02% (0.10-2.88) for corpectomies. For ACDFs, there was no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION (odds ratio, 0.726; confidence interval, CI, 0.287-1.833; P = 0.498). The pooled sensitivities and specificities of ION for ACSS are 71% (CI: 48%-87%) and 98% (CI: 92%-100%), respectively. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION [unimodal: 99% (CI: 97%-100%), multimodal: 92% (CI: 81%-96%), P = 0.0218]. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivities between unimodal and multimodal [68% vs. 88%, respectively, P = 0.949].
CONCLUSION
The risk of neurological injury after ACSS is low although procedures involving a corpectomy may carry a higher risk. For ACDFs, there is no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION use. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION and may minimize "subclinical" intraoperative alerts in ACSS.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
3.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Monitoring, Intraoperative; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 27390917
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001767 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Feb 2010The study design includes a systematic literature review. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery and to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
The study design includes a systematic literature review. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery and to compare this with open microdiscectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. Transforaminal endoscopic techniques for patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations have become increasingly popular. The literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. A comprehensive systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed up to May 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts and relevant full text articles for inclusion criteria. Included articles were assessed for quality and outcomes were extracted by the two reviewers independently. One randomized controlled trial, 7 non-randomized controlled trials and 31 observational studies were identified. Studies were heterogeneous regarding patient selection, indications, operation techniques, follow-up period and outcome measures and the methodological quality of these studies was poor. The eight trials did not find any statistically significant differences in leg pain reduction between the transforaminal endoscopic surgery group (89%) and the open microdiscectomy group (87%); overall improvement (84 vs. 78%), re-operation rate (6.8 vs. 4.7%) and complication rate (1.5 vs. 1%), respectively. In conclusion, current evidence on the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery is poor and does not provide valid information to either support or refute using this type of surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. High-quality randomized controlled trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are directly needed to evaluate if transforaminal endoscopic surgery is more effective than open microdiscectomy.
Topics: Diskectomy; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19756781
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1155-x