The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study

Surgical site infection rates in open versus endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Lumbar decompression is a commonly performed procedure for the operative management of several degenerative lumbar spinal pathologies. Although open approaches are considered the traditional method, endoscopic techniques represent a relatively novel, less-invasive option to achieve neural element decompression. Here within, we examine if the use of endoscopic techniques decreases the risk of post operative infections.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis to directly compare patients who underwent either open or endoscopic lumbar decompression at a single institution. Rates of postoperative outcomes such as surgical site infection, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, and others were compared between the two treatment groups. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed using patient comorbidities and procedural characteristics to identify the risk factors for surgical site infection.

Results

150 patients were identified as undergoing lumbar spine decompression surgeries that met inclusion criteria for the study, of whom 108 (72.0%) underwent open and 61 (28.0%) underwent endoscopic approaches. Unpaired analysis revealed positive associations between operative duration, estimated blood loss, drain placement rates. Multivariate logistic regression did not reveal an association between surgical approach (open versus endoscopic) and the development of surgical site infection.

Conclusions

Surgical site infections following endoscopic lumbar spine decompression are relatively uncommon, however, after adjusting for baseline differences between patient populations, surgical approach does not independently predict the development of postoperative infection.

A bibliometric and visualization study of global research trends in sacral Tarlov cyst from 2000 to 2022

Background

Symptomatic sacral Tarlov cyst (STC) exerts a significant negative impact on the patient's quality of life, highlighting the significance of the increasing number of studies on STC. However, bibliometric analyses in this research field are scarce. Thus, this study aims to provide a comprehensive knowledge structure and identify the research trends of STC through bibliometrics.

Methods

Articles related to STC from 2000 to 2022 were sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection database. VOSviewer 1.6.16, CiteSpace 6.1.6, GraphPad Prism 8.2.1 and R-package "bibliometrix" were used to analyse the data and generate knowledge maps.

Results

A total of 930 studies on STC from 2000 to 2022 were included. The findings revealed a consistent yet upward trend in the number of annual publications in this field. The United States, China and Turkey were the most prolific and influential countries contributing to this field, with the University of Illinois, the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards & Technology being the most notable research institutions. Key journals include World Neurosurgery [Impact Factor (IF) = 2.210], Journal of Vascular Surgery (IF = 4.860) and Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine (IF = 3.467). Additionally, Tarlov Mj, Tarlov E and Zachariah Mr exhibit the highest number of publications, making them the leading authors in this field. A twenty-year retrospection of research trends using keyword analysis reveals four principal directions, namely "definition", "pathogenesis", "diagnosis" and "treatment". Currently, therapeutic surgical intervention is the key treatment for this disease, with future treatments primarily hinging on minimally invasive methodologies rooted in microendoscopic and endoscopic techniques.

Conclusion

This pioneering, comprehensive scientific bibliometric study provides a holistic summary of STC research trends and hot spots spanning the past 22 years. The results identify existing research frontiers and chart maps for future studies, serving as a valuable reference for scholars vested in this field.

Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis

Pain generator-based lumbar spinal decompression surgery is the backbone of modern spine care. In contrast to traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for spinal surgery, assessing the severity of neural element encroachment, instability, and deformity, staged management of common painful degenerative lumbar spine conditions is likely to be more durable and cost-effective. Targeting validated pain generators can be accomplished with simplified decompression procedures associated with lower perioperative complications and long-term revision rates. In this perspective article, the authors summarize the current concepts of successful management of spinal stenosis patients with modern transforaminal endoscopic and translaminar minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. They represent the consensus statements of 14 international surgeon societies, who have worked in collaborative teams in an open peer-review model based on a systematic review of the existing literature and grading the strength of its clinical evidence. The authors found that personalized clinical care protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis rooted in validated pain generators can successfully treat most patients with sciatica-type back and leg pain including those who fail to meet traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for surgery since nearly half of the surgically treated pain generators are not shown on the preoperative MRI scan. Common pain generators in the lumbar spine include (a) an inflamed disc, (b) an inflamed nerve, (c) a hypervascular scar, (d) a hypertrophied superior articular process (SAP) and ligamentum flavum, (e) a tender capsule, (f) an impacting facet margin, (g) a superior foraminal facet osteophyte and cyst, (h) a superior foraminal ligament impingement, (i) a hidden shoulder osteophyte. The position of the key opinion authors of the perspective article is that further clinical research will continue to validate pain generator-based treatment protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis. The endoscopic technology platform enables spine surgeons to directly visualize pain generators, forming the basis for more simplified targeted surgical pain management therapies. Limitations of this care model are dictated by appropriate patient selection and mastering the learning curve of modern MIS procedures. Decompensated deformity and instability will likely continue to be treated with open corrective surgery. Vertically integrated outpatient spine care programs are the most suitable setting for executing such pain generator-focused programs.

Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (wRVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. A physician’s payment needs to be updated to commensurate with the work involved in the modern version of the lumbar endoscopic decompression procedure with and without the use of any implants to stabilize the spine. In the United States, the American Medical Association (AMA) and its Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) proposes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) what wRVUs to assign for any endoscopic lumbar surgery codes. Methods: The authors conducted an independent survey between May and June 2022 which reached 210 spine surgeons using the TypeForm survey platform. The survey link was sent to them via email and social media. Surgeons were asked to assess the endoscopic procedure’s technical and physical effort, risk, and overall intensity without focusing just on the time required to perform the surgery. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care with other commonly performed lumbar surgeries. For this purpose, respondents were provided with the verbatim descriptions of 12 other existing comparator CPT® codes and associated wRVUs of common spine surgeries, as well as a typical patient vignette describing an endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery scenario. Respondents were then asked to select the comparator CPT® code most reflective of the technical and physical effort, risk, intensity, and time spent on patient care during the pre-operative, peri- and intra-operative, and post-operative periods of a lumbar endoscopic surgery. Results: Of the 30 spine surgeons who completed the survey, 85.8%, 46.6%, and 14.3% valued the appropriate wRVU for the lumbar endoscopic decompression to be over 13, over 15, and over 20, respectively. Most surgeons (78.5%; <50th percentile) did not think they were adequately compensated. Regarding facility reimbursement, 77.3% of surgeons reported that their healthcare facility struggled to cover the cost with the received compensation. The majority (46.5%) said their facility received less than USD 2000, while another 10.7% reported less than USD 1500 and 17.9% reported less than USD 1000. The professional fee received by surgeons was <USD 1000 for 21.4%, <USD 2000 for 17.9%, and <USD 1500 for 10.7%, resulting in a fee less than USD 2000 for 50% of responding surgeons. Most responding surgeons (92.6%) recommended an endoscopic instrumentation carveout to pay for the added cost of the innovation. Discussion and Conclusions: The survey results indicate that most surgeons associate CPT® 62380 with the complexity and intensity of a laminectomy and interbody fusion preparation, considering the work in the epidural space using the contemporary outside-in and interlaminar technique and the work inside the interspace using the inside-out technique. Modern endoscopic spine surgery goes beyond the scope of a simple soft-tissue discectomy. The current iterations of the procedure must be considered to avoid undervaluing its complexity and intensity. Additional undervalued payment scenarios could be created if technological advances continue to replace traditional lumbar spinal fusion protocols with less burdensome, yet no less complex, endoscopic surgeries that necessitate a high surgeon effort in terms of time required to perform the operation and its intensity. These undervalued payment scenarios of physician practices, as well as the facility and malpractice expenses, should be further discussed to arrive at updated CPT® codes reflective of modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care.