Full-endoscopic discectomy for thoracic disc herniations: a single-arm meta-analysis of safety and efficacy outcomes

Endoscopic Versus Traditional Thoracic Discectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Case Series and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Surgical treatment for symptomatic thoracic disc herniations (TDH) involves invasive open surgical approaches with relatively high complication rates and prolonged hospital stays. Although advantages of full endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) are well-established in lumbar disc herniations, data are limited for the endoscopic treatment of TDH despite potential benefits regarding surgical invasiveness. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of potential benefits of FESS for the treatment of TDH.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were systematically searched for the term "thoracic disc herniation" up to March 2023 and study quality appraised with a subsequent meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were perioperative complications, need for instrumentation, and reoperations. Simultaneously, we performed a multicenter retrospective evaluation of outcomes in patients undergoing full endoscopic thoracic discectomy.

RESULTS

We identified 3190 patients from 108 studies for the traditional thoracic discectomy meta-analysis. Pooled incidence rates of complications were 25% (95% CI 0.22-0.29) for perioperative complications and 7% (95% CI 0.05-0.09) for reoperation. In this cohort, 37% (95% CI 0.26-0.49) of patients underwent instrumentation. The pooled mean for estimated blood loss for traditional approaches was 570 mL (95% CI 477.3-664.1) and 7.0 days (95% CI 5.91-8.14) for length of stay. For FESS, 41 patients from multiple institutions were retrospectively reviewed, perioperative complications were reported in 4 patients (9.7%), 4 (9.7%) required revision surgery, and 6 (14.6%) required instrumentation. Median blood loss was 5 mL (IQR 5-10), and length of stay was 0.43 days (IQR 0-1.23).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that full endoscopic thoracic discectomy is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic TDH. When compared with open surgical approaches, FESS dramatically diminishes invasiveness, the rate of complications, and need for prolonged hospitalizations. Full endoscopic spine surgery has the capacity to alter the standard of care for TDH treatment toward an elective outpatient surgery.

Posterolateral approaches to the thoracic spine for calcific disc herniation: is wider exposure always better?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costotransversectomy (CTV) and transpedicular (TP) approaches versus the transfacet (TF) approach for the surgical treatment of calcific thoracic spine herniations (cTDH), in terms of surgical and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Surgical approaches for cTDH are debated. Anterior approaches are recommended, while posterolateral approaches are preferred for non-calcific, paramedian, and lateral hernias. Currently, there is limited evidence about the superiority of a more invasive surgical approach, such as CTV or TP, over TF, a relatively less invasive approach, in terms of neurological outcome, pain, and surgical complications, for the treatment of cTDH.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, monocentric study was conducted on patients who underwent posterolateral thoracic approaches for symptomatic cTDH, between 2010 and 2023, at our institute. Three groups were drafted, based on the surgical approach used: TF, TP, and CTV. All procedures were assisted by intraoperative CT scan, spinal neuronavigation, and intraoperative neuromonitoring. Analyzed factors include duration of surgery, amount of bone removal, intraoperative blood loss, CSF leak, need of instrumentation for iatrogenic instability, degree of disc herniation removal, myelopathy recovery. Afterwards, a statistical analysis was performed to investigate the bony resection of the superior posterior edge of the vertebral soma. The primary outcome was the partial or total herniation removal.

RESULTS

This study consecutively enrolled 65 patients who underwent posterolateral thoracic surgery for cTDH. The TF approach taking the least, and the CTV the longest time (p < 0.01). No statistical difference was observed between the three mentioned approaches, in terms of intraoperative blood loss, dural leakage, post-resection instrumentation, total herniation removal, or myelopathy recovery. An additional somatic bony resection was successful in achieving total herniation removal (p < 0.01), and the extent of bony resection was directly proportional to the extent of hernia removal (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences were highlighted between the TP, TF, and CTV regarding the extent of cTDH removal, the postoperative complications, and the neurological improvement. The described somatic bone resection achieved significant total herniation removal and was directly proportional to the preop against postop anteroposterior diameter difference.

Australian Spine Surgeon's Perspectives on Endoscopic Spine Surgery: An In-depth Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is a minimally invasive approach with reduced tissue trauma, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery times. It employs advanced endoscopic instruments and imaging technologies to address a wide range of spinal pathologies with minimal disruption to surrounding tissues. As ESS continues to evolve, this article aims to gather insights into the opinions and perspectives of the key stakeholders involved, and highlight strategies to improve implementation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was distributed to collect data on Australian spine surgeons' perspectives of ESS. The survey questionnaire was distributed electronically to a diverse group of spine surgeons who are members of the Spine Society of Australia.

RESULTS

Of responders, 46.8% were already integrating ESS into practice, or had the sufficient training to commence ESS. A further 29.8% were contemplating introduction of ESS techniques, while just under one quarter of respondents (23.4%) were not interested in implementing minimally invasive techniques. Primary motivators for implementation included skill development and improved patient outcomes. Primary barriers included lack of training opportunities, length of time to develop competency and lack of current supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on ESS by providing a comprehensive analysis of surgeon opinions and experiences. The results highlight the growing interest in endoscopic techniques, while recognizing the challenges that need to be addressed to make this more widely utilised and available. The findings can guide future research, training programs, clinical practice and ultimately improve health and financial outcomes to patients and the wider health system.