[Acute low back pain--assessment and management]

Emergency department visits within 90 days of lumbar discectomy

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar discectomy is a common procedure following which emergency department (ED) visits may occur. Although many quality improvement initiatives target reemissions, ED visits may be more common, be a marker of quality of care, affect patient satisfaction, and contribute to health-care resource utilization and costs.

PURPOSE

To analyze the timing and risk factors predicting ED utilization following lumbar discectomy and thereby facilitate better-targeted risk reduction.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective database review of the 2010 to April 30th, 2021, M157Ortho PearlDiver dataset.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Single-level lumbar laminotomy/discectomy between 2010 and April 30th, 2021, in the PearlDiver M157Ortho dataset.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Functional measures-ED utilization in the 90 days following lumbar discectomy, patient-level predictors for ED utilization, and number and type of reoperations performed in the 90 days following lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

Lumbar laminotomies/discectomies were identified. Patients were excluded if additional procedures were performed or if there was not 90-day follow-up in the dataset. Patient factors were extracted, including age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI), region of the country in which their procedure was performed (Midwest, Northeast, South, West), and patient insurance plan (Commercial, Medicaid, Medicare). The incidence, timing, and frequency of ED utilization within 90 days of lumbar discectomy were then determined. Cohort average weekly ED utilization at 1-year postoperatively was calculated as a baseline for reference. Patient factors predictive of postoperative ED utilization were then determined with univariate and multivariate analyses. Primary diagnoses for ED visits were also categorized. Patients who underwent reoperation for complications related to lumbar discectomy following ED visits were determined, and types of reoperation procedures were characterized.

RESULTS

Of 281,103 lumbar discectomy patients identified, ED visits within 90 days of surgery were identified for 28,632 (10.2%). Of note, 40.4% of these ED visits occurred in the first 2 postoperative weeks. Multivariate analysis revealed several independent predictors of ED utilization following lumbar discectomy, including: younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 per decade decrease), female sex (OR 1.12 relative to male), higher ECI (OR 1.42 per 2-point increase), having surgery performed in the Northeast, Midwest, or West United States (OR 1.05, 1.17, and 1.13, respectively, relative to South), and Medicaid coverage (OR 1.89 relative to Medicare). Forty-three percent of ED visits were surgical site related, of which surgical site pain predominated at 34.2% of overall reasons. Of patients who visited the ED, 943 (3.3%) underwent reoperation in the subsequent 2 weeks. Laminectomy with nerve root decompression was the most performed reoperation (30.9%), followed by incision and drainage (22.5%), posterior nonsegmental instrumentation (10.3%), laminectomy facetectomy and foraminotomy (9.97%), repair of dural/CSF leak or pseudomeningocele with laminectomy (9.3%), repair of dural/CSF leak not requiring laminectomy (8.9%), arthrodesis (4.3%), and posterior segmental instrumentation (3.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Following lumbar discectomy, over 1 in 10 patients were found to visit the ED in the 90 days following their surgery, most commonly in the first 2 postoperative weeks. Specific patient characteristics were associated with such ED visits, with the most common primary diagnoses among ED visitors being surgical site pain. About 3.3% of patients who visited the ED underwent reoperation in the subsequent 2 weeks. Through identification of the timing, risk factors, primary reasons for, and risk of reoperation following ED utilization in the 90-day period after lumbar discectomy, care pathways can be modified to improve patient satisfaction, outcomes, and reduce excess health-care expenditures.

Better Functional Outcome and Pain Relief in the Far-Lateral-Outside-in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy

Background

Even though percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) has been widely used for the surgical treatment of lumbar herniated disc, there are only a few studies directly comparing the clinical outcomes between microdiscectomy (MD) and PETD. Therefore, further studies are needed in order to compare the clinical outcomes between PETD and MD on a single level more thoroughly.

Methods

We proposed a far-lateral-outside-in technique for PETD to get an entry point without complex planning and facet violation. From September 2017 to September 2019, a total of 155 patients (69 with PETD and 86 with MD) were enrolled for this retrospective study, with the inclusion criteria: single level between L2 and S1, clinical sciatica for at least 6 weeks, and failed attempts with non-surgical treatments. Patients were excluded due to cauda equina syndrome, progressive neurologic deficits, history of lumbar spinal surgery, endplate modic changes, severe disc degeneration and less than 24 months of follow-up.

Results

PETD showed significantly shorter surgery time and less intraoperative blood loss compared to MD. The difference between PETD and MD in VAS back pain (but not VAS leg pain) at follow-up time was significant. The ODI improvement in the follow-up time of 6 months between the 2 groups showed a significant difference (PETD: 31.23±6.59, MD: 39.85±7.81, p < 0.001). MD had a significantly higher chance of postoperative wound infection and poor healing, while PETD was more likely to have recurrence of the herniated disc.

Conclusion

MD has been the gold standard procedure for LDH. However, with the advanced endoscopic technology and surgical technique, PETD has emerged as an alternative method due to higher functional outcome and less wound problems.

A Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation in the Korean: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Among the surgical methods for lumbar disc herniation, open lumbar microdiscectomy is considered the gold standard. Recently, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy is also commonly performed for lumbar disc herniation for its various strong points.

Objectives

The present study aims to examine whether percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy show better results as surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniation in the Korean population.

Methods

In the present meta-analysis, papers on Korean patients who underwent open lumbar microdiscectomy and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy were searched, both of which are surgical methods to treat lumbar disc herniation. The papers from 1973, when percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy was first introduced, to March 2018 were searched at the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library.

Results

Seven papers with 1254 patients were selected. A comparison study revealed that percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy had significantly better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in the visual analogue pain scale at the final follow-up (leg: mean difference [MD]=-0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.61, -0.09; p=0.009; back: MD=-0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-1.42, -0.17; p=0.01), Oswestry Disability Index (MD=-2.12; 95% CI=-4.25, 0.01; p=0.05), operation time (MD=-23.06; 95% CI=-32.42, -13.70; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD=-4.64; 95% CI=-6.37, -2.90; p<0.00001). There were no statistical differences in the MacNab classification (odds ratio [OR]=1.02; 95% CI=0.71, 1.49; p=0.90), complication rate (OR=0.72; 95% CI=0.20, 2.62; p=0.62), recurrence rate (OR=0.83; 95% CI=0.50, 1.38; p=0.47), and reoperation rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI=0.89, 2.35; p=0.13).

Limitations

All 7 papers used for the meta-analysis were non-RCTs. Some differences (type of surgery (primary or revisional), treatment options before the operation, follow-up period, etc.) existed depending on the selected paper, and the sample size was small as well.

Conclusion

While percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy showed better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in some items, open lumbar microdiscectomy still showed good clinical results, and it is therefore reckoned that a randomized controlled trial with a large sample size would be required in the future to compare these two surgical methods.

Lumbar Scoliosis Combined Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Herniation Diagnosed Patient Was Treated with "U" Route Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

The objective was to report a case of a 63-year-old man with a history of low back pain (LBP) and left leg pain for 2 years, and the symptom became more serious in the past 5 months. The patient was diagnosed with lumbar scoliosis combined with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and lumbar disc herniation (LDH) at the level of L4-5 that was confirmed using Computerized Topography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The surgical team preformed a novel technique, “U” route transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), which led to substantial, long-term success in reduction of pain intensity and disability. After removing the osteophyte mass posterior to the thecal sac at L4-5, the working channel direction was changed to the gap between posterior longitudinal ligament and thecal sac, and we also removed the herniation and osteophyte at L3-4 with “U” route PELD. The patient's symptoms were improved immediately after the surgical intervention; low back pain intensity decreased from preoperative 9 to postoperative 2 on a visual analog scale (VAS) recorded at 1 month postoperatively. The success of the intervention suggests that “U” route PELD may be a feasible alternative to treat lumbar scoliosis with LSS and LDH patients.

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

This study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantage of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and standard discectomy (SD) for the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation (LDH). We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane databases for relevant trials that compare PELD and SD for the treatment of LDH. The Cochrane Collaboration's Revman 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis compiled 1301 cases from four random controlled trials and three retrospective studies. Compared with SD, PELD showed a shorter operative time (mean difference (MD)=-18.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): -24.92 to -12.43; p<0.00001), less blood loss (MD=-64.88, 95% CI: -114.51 to -15.25, p<0.0001), shorter hospital stay (MD=-3.51, 95% CI: -4.93 to -2.08, p<0.00001), and shorter mean disability period (MD=-34.34, 95% CI: -53.90 to -14.77, p<0.006). However, there were no significant differences in the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at the final follow up (MD=-0.23, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.07, p=0.14), Macnab criteria at the final follow up (MD=1.04, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.50, p=0.82), complications (RR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.43, p=0.39), recurrence rate (risk ratio (RR)=1.00, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.64, p=1) and reoperation rate (RR=1.40, 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.16, p=0.13). In conclusion, despite PELD showing significant benefit in short term outcomes such as hospital course and mean disability period, similar clinical efficacy and long term outcomes were observed when compared to SD. Therefore, we suggest that PELD can be a feasible alternative to the conventional posterior approach for the LDH depending on surgeon preference and indication. High-quality randomized controlled trials with sufficient large sample sizes necessary further confirm these results.

The efficacy of thermotherapy and cryotherapy on pain relief in patients with acute low back pain, a clinical trial study

INTRODUCTION

Acute low back pain is one of the most common health problems especially in industrialized countries where 75 per cent of the population develop it at least once during their life. This study examined the efficacy of thermotherapy and cryotherapy, alongside a routine pharmacologic treatment, on pain relief in patients with acute low back pain referring an orthopedic clinic in Shahrekord, Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This clinical trial study was conducted on 87 patients randomly assigned to three (thermotherapy and cryotherapy as intervention, and naproxen as control) groups of 29 each. The first (thermotherapy) group underwent treatment with hot water bag and naproxen, the second (cryotherapy) group was treated with ice and naproxen, and the naproxen group was only treated with naproxen, all for one week. All patients were examined on 0, 3(rd), 8(th), and 15(th) day after the first visit and the data gathered by McGill Pain Questionnaire. The data were analyzed by SPSS software using paired t-test, ANOVA, and chi-square.

RESULTS

In this study, mean age of the patients was 34.48 (20-50) years and 51.72 per cent were female. Thermotherapy patients reported significantly less pain compared to cryotherapy and control (p≤0.05). In thermotherapy and cryotherapy groups, mean pain in the first visit was 12.70±3.7 and 12.06±2.6, and on the 15(th) day after intervention 0.75±0.37 and 2.20±2.12, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that the application of thermo-therapy and cryotherapy accompanied with a pharmacologic treatment could relieve pain in the patients with acute low back pain.

The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy (MID) with standard discectomy (SD) and determine whether the use of the MID technique could decrease the recurrence of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) after the surgery.

METHODS

In February 2014, a comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and the Chinese Biological Medicine Database. Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared MID with SD for the surgical management of LDH were included. These trials were carefully picked out following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, two authors independently extracted data and assessed these trials' quality. The age of the patients, size of incision, surgical time, blood loss, visual analogue scale (VAS) score after the surgery, hospital stay, disc herniation recurrence, X-ray exposure and surgical costs in these studies were abstracted and synthesised by a meta-analysis with RevMan 5.2.0 software, and the main results (VAS score after the surgery and disc herniation recurrence) of publication bias were examined by Stata 12.0.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 trials involving 2,139 patients meeting our criteria were included and analysed. Comparing MID and SD, the former was more likely to increase disc herniation recurrence [relative risk (RR) = 1.95, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.19-3.19, p = 0.008], and it involved a smaller size of incision [mean difference (MD) = -1.91, 95 % CI -3.33 to -0.50, p = 0.008], shorter hospital stay, longer operating time (MD = 11.03, 95 %C I 6.62-15.44, p < 0.00001) and less blood loss (MD = -13.56, 95 % CI -22.26 to -4.87, p = 0.002), while no statistical difference appeared with regard to the age of the patients, VAS score after the surgery, X-ray exposure, hospital stay and surgical costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available evidence, MID results in less suffering for patients during the hospital course with a similar clinical efficacy compared to SD. This makes MID a promising procedure for patients with LDH; however, to popularise it greater effort is required to reduce disc herniation recurrence.

Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, placebo trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of Yamamoto's acupuncture method on pain, drug intake, functional capacity and quality of life for the treatment of acute non-specific low back pain (ANLBP).

METHODS

A prospective, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 80 men and women with ANLBP who were randomly assigned to five acupuncture sessions (intervention group (IG), n=40) and to five non-penetrating acupuncture sessions (sham group (SG), n=40). Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. The measurements used were: visual analogue scale (VAS) for cumulative pain (before intervention, VAS1) and immediate pain (after intervention, VAS2); function (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM)); quality of life (SF-36); improvement rating; and number of anti-inflammatory tablets taken. The primary endpoint was a decrease of at least 2 cm in VAS1.

RESULTS

Pain VAS improved significantly in the IG from day 14 onwards compared with the SG, but the difference did not reach the prespecified clinically relevant value of 2 cm. The IG was significantly superior to the SG in the following outcomes: cumulative pain, function, pain (SF-36) and vitality (SF-36) at days 14, 21 and 28 (p<0.05); limitation in physical aspects (SF-36) at all times (p=0.007 and p=0.02); and functional capacity (SF-36) at days 21 and 28 (p<0.05). The IG also took significantly fewer anti-inflammatory tablets than the SG (p=0.004) at all evaluation times and the improvement rating was better than the SG (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Yamamoto's new scalp acupuncture was more effective than sham treatment with regard to decrease in pain and anti-inflammatory intake as well as improving functional status and quality of life for patients with ANLBP.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT 01124955.