Minimal invasive fixation following with radiotherapy for radiosensitive unstable metastatic spine

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion assisted by intraoperative O-arm total navigation for lumbar degenerative disease: A retrospective study

Background

Recently, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) has been successfully applied for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, with good clinical results reported. However, the drawbacks include radiation exposure, limited field of view, and steep learning curves.

Objective

This retrospective study aimed to compare the results between navigation and non-navigation groups and explore the benefits of BE-LIF assisted by intraoperative O-arm total navigation.

Methods

A total of 44 patients were retrospectively analyzed from August 2020 to June 2021. Perioperative data were collected, including operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospital stay, radiation dose, and duration of radiation exposure. In addition, clinical outcomes were evaluated using postoperative data, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), modified MacNab criteria, Postoperative complications and fusion rate.

Results

The non-navigation and navigation groups included 23 and 21 patients, respectively. All the patients were followed up for at least 12 months. No significant differences were noted in the estimated intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospital stay, fusion rate, or perioperative complications between the two groups. The radiation dose was significantly lower in the navigation group than in the non-navigation group. The average total operation time in the navigation group was lower than that in the non-navigation group (P < 0.01). All clinical outcomes showed improvement at different time points postoperatively, with no significant difference noted between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with the non-navigation approach, O-arm total navigation assistive BE-LIF technology not only has similar clinical results, but also can provide accurate intraoperative guidance and help spinal surgeons achieve accurate decompression. Furthermore, it can reduce radiation exposure to surgeons and operation time, which improve the efficiency and safety of surgery.

An area of greatest vulnerability - recent advances in kidney injury

In this issue of the Biomedical Journal the reader is provided with an insight into the latest observations and advances in acute kidney injury as well as chronic kidney disease. The current SARS-CoV-2 variants are reviewed, and the role of long non-coding RNA in HIV therapy is explored. Furthermore, the potential of metabolomics as means to diagnose multiple sclerosis as well as tuberculosis is presented. Other topics of this issue include the restoration of the spermatogonial stem cell niche; atherosclerosis and the use of improved ultrasound images; and the effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with autism spectrum disorder. Finally, it is shown how continuous passive motion can be used as supportive therapeutic approach in children with cerebral palsy, and minimally invasive surgery is presented as valid alternative in cases of spine metastasis.

Posterior Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Fixation Versus Open Surgical Instrumented Fusion for Thoraco-Lumbar Spinal Metastases Palliative Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Surgical palliative treatment of spinal metastases (SM) could influence the quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients, since the spine represents the most common site of secondary bony localization. Traditional open posterior instrumented fusion (OPIF) and Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) became the main surgical treatment alternatives for SM, but in Literature there is no evidence that describes the absolute superiority of one treatment over the other.

Materials and Methods

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on PPSF versus OPIF in patients with SM, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The outcomes of interest were: complications, blood loss, infections, mortality, pain and also the Quality of Life (QoL).

Results

There were a total of 8 studies with 448 patients included in the meta-analyses. Postoperative complications were more frequent in OPIF (odds ratio of 0.48. 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.83; p= 0.01), PPFS was associated with blood loss (odds ratio -585.70. 95% IC, -848.28 to -323.13.69; p< 0.0001) and a mean hospital stay (odds ratio -3.77. 95% IC, -5.92 to -1.61; p= 0.0006) decrease. The rate of infections was minor in PPFS (odds ratio of 0.31. 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.81; p= 0.02) whereas the occurrence of reinterventions (0.76. 95% CI, 0.25 to 2.27; p= 0.62) and the mortality rate was similar in both groups (odds ratio of 0.79. 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.58; p= 0.51). Finally, we also evaluated pre and post-operative VAS and the meta-analysis suggested that both techniques have a similar effect on pain.

Discussion and Conclusion

The PPSF treatment is related with less complications, a lower rate of infections, a reduction in intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay compared to the OPIF treatment. However, further randomized clinical trials could confirm the results of this meta-analysis and provide a superior quality of scientific evidence.