Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

Annular Closure Device Reduces Symptomatic Reherniation Rates: Results of a Meta-analysis

Background: The scope of existing annular closure device (ACD) studies examining long-term follow-up data is limited. There is a paucity of studies that report and analyze recent outcomes data following ACD use. Purpose: We sought to summarize the available long-term follow-up data on postoperative outcomes of the Barricaid (Intrinsic Therapeutics) ACD. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the PubMed, Cochrane, and OVID databases were searched to identify studies after 2015 that include direct evaluation of an ACD in a clinical context with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up and inclusion of reherniation and complication rates, while excluding case reports, reviews, and meta-analyses. Outcome measures included patient demographics, study characteristics, surgical technique, defect measurement technique, perioperative statistics, radiographic assessments, complications, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and postoperative outcomes. Results: Five studies-2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 retrospective studies, and 1 prospective cohort study-were included. Symptomatic reherniation rates in the ACD populations ranged from 3% to 18.8%. Two studies found that control groups herniate significantly more than their ACD counterparts (ACD 18.8% vs non-ACD 31.6% and ACD 3.33% vs non-ACD 20.0%). No significant differences were found in reoperation rates. Of the 4 studies that reported PROMs data, all observed relative improvement in each cohort, although pooled analysis did not find significant differences between ACD and non-ACD groups for Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale-leg pain at 2-year follow-up. Conclusions: For patients undergoing diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation, the Barricaid device is effective in reducing symptomatic reherniation but does not appear to alter postoperative PROMs or reoperation rates. Surgeons must consider that device-related complications can occur.

Safety Profile of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Compared to Conventional Microscopic Approach: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events.

METHODS

We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20-80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%).

CONCLUSION

BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis

DATA BACKGROUND

Because the traditional open-TLIF approach has several drawbacks, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for TLIF (MISTLIF) have been developed to speed up recovery after surgery and minimize pressure on the para-spinal muscles, necessitating a cost-utility analysis for comparison in healthcare reforms.

OBJECTIVES AND AIM OF THE WORK

This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical parameters between mini-open TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

HYPOTHESIS

This study hypothesizes that both minimally invasive and mini-open methods using sublaminar trimming laminoplasty (SLTL) (while preserving midline structures) and interbody cages have comparable mid- and long-term clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analyses were performed on 120 patients who underwent single-level TLIF procedures with a minimum of two years of follow-up utilizing either the mini-open (n = 60) or MIS (n = 60) technique. Records of the operation's time frame, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of bed rest, and complications were recorded. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for both groups were utilized to assess improvements in clinical scores, and t tests were employed to statistically compare the outcomes. For comparison, radiological parameters, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence (PI), and localized lordosis at the index level, were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. To assess postoperative interbody fusion, the Bridwell grading system was used.

RESULTS

In the Mini-open TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 24.91 ± 5.7 months, while in the MIS-TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 25.15 ± 4.2 months. In the MIS-TLIF group, the mean operation and radiological time were longer. However, compared to the Mini-open TLIF group, the MISTLIF group experienced less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The MIS-TLIF group outperformed the Open-TLIF group in terms of the VAS score for back pain and the ODI at less than 6 months following surgery, and the differences were statistically significant. However, at the final follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in the VAS score for the back between the two groups, but the ODI score was significantly greater in the MIS-TLIF group. Both groups' lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis significantly improved at the index level, with the Mini-open-TLIF group showing more focal lordosis. The interbody fusion rate did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

MIS-TLIF and mini-open-TLIF can be surgically effective in treating single-level degenerative lumbar spine spondylolisthesis.

Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) employs small incisions and advanced techniques to minimize tissue damage while achieving similar outcomes to open surgery. MISS offers benefits such as reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower costs. This review analyzes complications associated with MISS over the last 10 years, highlighting common issues and the impact of technological advancements.

METHODS

A systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase via OVID, and Cochrane databases, covering publications from January 2013 to March 2024. Keywords related to MISS and complications were used. Studies on adult patients undergoing MISS with tubular, uniportal, or biportal endoscopy, reporting intraoperative or postoperative complications, were included. Non-English publications, abstracts, and small case series were excluded. Data on MISS approach, patient demographics, and complications were extracted and reviewed by 2 independent researchers.

RESULTS

The search identified 880 studies, with 137 included after screening and exclusions. Key complications in cervical MISS were hematomas, transient nerve root palsy, and dural tears. In thoracic MISS, complications included cerebrospinal fluid leaks and durotomy. In lumbar MISS, common complications were incidental dural injuries, postoperative neuropathic conditions, and disc herniation recurrences. Complications varied by surgical approach.

CONCLUSION

MISS offers reduced anatomical disruption compared to open surgery, potentially decreasing nerve injury risk. However, complications such as nerve injuries, durotomies, and hardware misplacement still occur. Intraoperative neuromonitoring and advanced technologies like navigation can help mitigate these risks. Despite variability in complication rates, MISS remains a safe, effective alternative with ongoing advancements enhancing its outcomes.

Endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for pathologies of lumbar spine: A nationwide cross-sectional study from a lower-middle-income country

Objective

We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the preference of spine surgeons between MD for microdiscectomy and endoscopic discectomy (ED) surgery for the management of lumbar pathologies in a lower-middle-income country (LMIC).

Methodology

An online survey assessing the preference of spine surgeons for various lumbar pathologies was developed and disseminated in "Neurosurgery Cocktail" a social media platform. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software with a level of significance <0.05.

Results

We received responses from 160 spine surgeons having a median experience of 6.75 years (range 0-42 years) after residency. Most of the spine surgeons preferred MD over ED, preference being homogeneous across all lumbar pathologies. In ED, the interlaminar approach was preferred more frequently than the transforaminal approach. The most commonly chosen contraindication for the interlaminar approach and transforaminal approach was ≥ 3 levels lumbar disc herniation (LDH) (n = 117, 73.1%) and calcified LDH (n = 102, 63.8%), respectively. There was no significant association between the type of approach preferred (MD vs. ED; and interlaminar vs. translaminar endoscopic approach) with the type of workplace and the level of experience.

Conclusion

Spine surgeons were inclined toward MD over ED, due to various reasons, such as a steep learning curve, lack of training opportunities, and upfront expenses. There is a pressing need for the upliftment of ED in LMICs which requires global action.

Intradiscal Gelified Ethanol Nucleolysis versus Endoscopic Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation Radiculopathy

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare efficacy and safety between intradiscal injection of a gelified ethanol product and tubular discectomy in the treatment of intervertebral disk herniation. A bi-central institutional database research identified forty (40) patients suffering from symptomatic contained disc herniation. Nucleolysis Group included 20 patients [mean 50.05 ± 9.27 years-of-age (male/female 14/6-70/30%)] and Surgery Group included 20 patients [mean 48.45 ± 14.53 years-of-age, (male/female 12/8-60/40%)]. Primary outcome was overall 12-month improvement over baseline in leg pain (NVS units). Procedural technical outcomes were recorded, and adverse events were evaluated at all follow-up intervals. CIRSE classification system was used for complications' reporting. Mean pre-operative pain score in Nucleolysis Group was 7.95 ± 0.94 reduced to 1.25 ± 1.11 at month 1 and 0.45 ± 0.75 NVS units at year 1. Mean pre-operative pain score in Surgery Group was 7.65 ± 1.13 reduced to 1.55 ± 1.79 at month 1 and 0.70 ± 1.38 NVS units at year 1. Pain decrease was statistically significant after both procedures (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between pain reduction in both groups (p = 0.347). The decrease differences of the pain effect upon general activities, sleeping, socializing, walking, and enjoying life in the follow-up period between the two groups were not statistically significant. No complications were noted in both groups. Results from the current study report that intradiscal injection of a gelified ethanol and tubular discectomy were equally effective on terms of efficacy and safety for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar intervertebral disc herniation regarding the 12-month mean leg pain improvement. Both achieved similar rapid significant clinical improvement persisting throughout follow-up period.

Timing of Recovery After Surgery for Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

BACKGROUND

The time course over which postoperative neurological recovery occurs after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy occurs is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the time point at which patients experience significant neurological improvement.

METHODS

We reviewed data from an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study. We measured neurological function at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery using the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) scale. We implemented minimal clinical important differences (MCIDs) to guide interpretation of mJOA scores, and we used 1-way analysis of variance to compare changes between follow-up intervals.

RESULTS

Among 330 patients, the mean overall mJOA improved from 12.9 (SD 2.6) to 14.6 (SD 2.4) at 3 months, 14.7 (SD 2.4) at 1 year, and 14.8 (SD 2.5) at 2 years. The difference in means was statistically significant (P < .01) at the interval from baseline to 3 months postoperatively, but not from 3 months to 1 year or 1 year to 2 years. The MCID was reached by 161 patients at 3 months, 32 more at 1 year, and 15 more at 2 years, with a statistically significant difference only at 3 months. Patients with moderate or severe disease reached the MCID more frequently than those with mild disease.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy, most significant neurological improvement occurred by 3 months after surgery. These findings will facilitate valid discussions about postoperative expectations during shared clinical decision making between patients and their surgeons.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

With the increase in life expectancy and consequent aging of the population, degenerative lumbar spine diseases tend to increase its number exponentially. Several treatment options are available to treat degenerative spinal diseases, such as laminectomies, posterior fusions, and interbody fusions, depending on their locations, correction necessities, and surgeon philosophy. With the advance in technology and surgical knowledge, minimally invasive techniques (MIS) arose as a solution to reduce surgical morbidity, while maintaining the same benefits as the traditionally/open surgeries. Several studies investigated the possible advantages of MIS techniques against the traditional open procedures. However, those articles are usually focused only on one technique or on one pathology.

Methods

The electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, and BVS, were systematically reviewed. Only original articles in English or Portuguese were added to the review, the revision was performed following the PRISMA guideline.

Results

Fifty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of the studied outcomes the Length of Stay Odds of complications, Blood Loss, and Surgery costs presented significantly favored MIS approaches, while the Last FUP ODI score, and Surgery Time did not differ among the groups.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive techniques are a remarkably interesting option to traditional open surgeries, as these procedures showed a significant reduction in blood loss, hospitalization time, complications, and surgical costs.