Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Lumbar Synovial Cysts

Outcomes and adverse events for spinal synovial cysts surgical treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal synovial cysts (SSCs) are a rare cause of nerve root and spinal cord compression. Surgical excision of SSCs remains the mainstay of treatment in the presence of unremitting symptoms or neurological deficits, but the choice of the surgical approach remains controversial. The goal of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and adverse events associated with traditional approaches (interlaminar or laminectomy/hemilaminectomy) and minimally invasive approaches (microsurgical tubular approaches or endoscopic approaches) for SSCs.

METHODS

Studies reporting surgical management of SSCs were searched in three online databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science). This meta-analysis was reported following the PRISMA Statement. It was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021288992). The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias in Nonrandomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to evaluate bias. Extracted research data were statistically analyzed using Stata 16 and SPSS statistics 25.

RESULTS

A total of 22 related relevant studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in dural tear, residual cyst, recurrence, reoperation, and operation time between minimally invasive approaches and traditional approaches (p > 0.05), but minimally invasive approaches had a good functional improvement (p = 0.004). Postoperative length of hospital stays and intraoperative bleeding in traditional approaches were also higher than in minimally invasive approaches (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence, minimally invasive approaches may be better than traditional approaches in the treatment of SSCs. Minimally invasive approaches had the advantages of improving clinical satisfaction, with a similar complication rate to traditional approaches. Moreover, endoscopic and microsurgical tubular approaches had similar outcomes.

Efficacy of minimally invasive tubular approaches for management of the lumbar spinal synovial cysts: a meta-analysis

The treatment of lumbar spinal synovial cysts (LSCs) which are relatively rare but can cause neurogenic dysfunction and intractable pain has been a controversial topic for many years. Surgical excision of LSCs is the standard treatment for patients in whom conservative treatment options fail. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare clinical outcomes between minimally invasive approaches using tubular retractors (microscopic vs. endoscopic) and traditional percutaneous approaches for LSCs. Studies reporting surgical management of LSCs were searched in the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science database. This meta-analysis was reported following the PRISMA Statement, registered in Prospero (CRD42021288992). A total of 1833 patients were included from both the related relevant studies (41 studies, n = 1831) and the present series (n = 2). Meta-analysis of minimally invasive tubular approaches revealed no statistically significant difference in pain improvement, dural tear, residual cyst, recurrence and operation time between minimal groups with traditional groups (p > 0.05). Minimal groups had better Functional improvement of 100% (95% CI 1.00-1.00; p < 0.001, I2 = 75.3%) and less reoperation rates of 0% (95% CI - 0.00-0.00; p = 0.007, I2 = 47.1%). Postoperative length of hospital stay and intraoperative bleeding in minimal groups were also less than traditional groups (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed endoscopic groups had less operation time (p = 0.004), and there was no significant difference in the rest. For patients with LSCs but without obvious clinical and imaging evidence of vertebral instability, even when preoperative stable grade 1 spondylolisthesis is present, minimally invasive tubular approaches without fusion may provide the best outcome in surgical management.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Decompression without Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Synovial Cysts: Feasibility and Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar synovial cysts (LSCs) can cause painful radiculopathy and sensory and/or motor deficits. Historically, first-line surgical treatment has been decompression with fusion. Recently, minimally invasive laminectomy without fusion has shown equal or superior results to traditional decompression and fusion methods.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the long-term efficacy of minimally invasive laminectomy without fusion in the treatment of LSC as it relates to the rate of subsequent fusion surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed over a 10-year period of patients undergoing minimally invasive laminectomy for symptomatic LSCs. The primary end point was the rate of revision surgery requiring fusion.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients with symptomatic LSCs underwent minimally invasive laminectomy alone January 2010-August 2020 at our institution. The most common location was L4-5 (72%). Preoperative imaging identified spondylolisthesis (grade 1) in 43 patients (57%), none of which was unstable on available dynamic radiographs. Average procedure duration was 93 minutes, with 78% of patients discharged home on the same day of surgery. Over 46 months of mean follow-up, 17 patients (20%) required 19 revision operations. Of those operations, 16 were spinal fusions (17.6%). Median time to fusion surgery was 36 months. There were no identifiable risk factors on multivariate regression analysis that predicted the need for fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive laminectomy is an effective first-line treatment for symptomatic LSCs and avoids the need for fusion in most treated patients. Of our patients, 18% required a fusion over 46 months, suggesting that further studies are required to guide patient selection.

Outcomes and complications following minimally invasive excision of synovial cysts of the lumbar spine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar synovial cysts (LSC) are one of the manifestations of spinal degenerative cascade. Spinal stenosis or presence of instability in these patients can lead to various symptoms and surgery is indicated following failure of non-operative management for symptomatic synovial cysts. Surgery when performed consists of either decompression with resection of cyst with our without fusion. The efficacy and complications of minimally invasive techniques using tubular retractors (microscopic or endoscopic) in comparison to traditional open techniques remain to be studied.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of different databases was performed to retrieve studies describing the use of minimal invasive techniques using tubular retractors (both microscopic and endoscopic) in patients with LSC. Meta-analysis with subgroup analysis and metaregression was done.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were selected for the systematic review and meta-analysis with total of 388 patients. Eighty-six percent of patients (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 80-90%) had favorable outcome as per Macnab's criteria (excellent and good outcome) with the pooled standard mean difference between preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) being -4.44 (95% CI -8.78 to -0.10, p-value=0.0474, I² 82%). The pooled percentage change in visual analogue scale (VAS) after surgery was 76.5% (95% CI 66.9-84%, I² 82%). The pooled proportion of incidental durotomies, cyst recurrence and patients requiring operation being 8% (95% CI 5-11%, I² 0%), 4% (95% CI 2-7%, I² 0%,) and 5% (95% CI 3-9%) respectively. Studies were homogeneous with an I² value of 0%. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in the outcome rates or complication rates between the microscopic and endoscopic subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive techniques for the resection of LSC is a safe and effective alternative to traditional surgical approaches with no difference between the microscopic and endoscopic approaches.

Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Review.

OBJECTIVE

A comparative overview of cost-effectiveness between minimally invasive versus and equivalent open spinal surgeries.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify articles of interest. To maximize the capture of studies in our initial search, we combined variants of the terms "cost," "minimally invasive," "spine," "spinal fusion," "decompression" as either keywords or MeSH terms. PearlDiver database was queried for open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS; endoscopic or percutaneous) reimbursements between Q3 2015 and Q2 2018.

RESULTS

In general, MIS techniques appeared to decrease blood loss, shorten hospital lengths of stay, mitigate complications, decrease perioperative pain, and enable quicker return to daily activities when compared to equivalent open surgical techniques. With regard to cost, primarily as a result of these latter benefits, MIS was associated with lower costs of care when compared to equivalent open techniques. However, cost reporting was sparse, and relevant methodology was inconsistent throughout the spine literature. Within the PearlDiver data sets, MIS approaches had lower reimbursements than open approaches for both lumbar posterior fusion and discectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data suggests that overall cost-savings may be incurred with use of MIS techniques. However, data reporting on costs lacks in uniformity, making it difficult to formulate any firm conclusions regarding any incremental improvements in cost-effectiveness that may be incurred when utilizing MIS techniques when compared to equivalent open techniques.