Spinal fusion in the treatment of chronic low back pain: rationale for improvement

Current Updates on Bone Grafting Biomaterials and Recombinant Human Growth Factors Implanted Biotherapy for Spinal Fusion: A Review of Human Clinical Studies

BACKGROUND

Owing to their great promise in the spinal surgeries, bone graft substitutes have been widely investigated for their safety and clinical potential. By the current advances in the spinal surgery, an understanding of the precise biological mechanism of each bone graft substitute is mandatory for upholding the induction of solid spinal fusion.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present review is to critically discuss various surgical implications and level of evidence of most commonly employed bone graft substitutes for spinal fusion.

METHOD

Data was collected via electronic search using "PubMed", "SciFinder", "ScienceDirect", "Google Scholar", "Web of Science" and a library search for articles published in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and e-books.

RESULTS

Despite having exceptional inherent osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive features, clinical acceptability of autografts (patient's own bone) is limited due to several perioperative and postoperative complications i.e., donor-site morbidities and limited graft supply. Alternatively, allografts (bone harvested from cadaver) have shown great promise in achieving acceptable bone fusion rate while alleviating the donor-site morbidities associated with implantation of autografts. As an adjuvant to allograft, demineralized bone matrix (DBM) has shown remarkable efficacy of bone fusion, when employed as graft extender or graft enhancer. Recent advances in recombinant technologies have made it possible to implant growth and differentiation factors (bone morphogenetic proteins) for spinal fusion.

CONCLUSION

Selection of a particular bone grafting biotherapy can be rationalized based on the level of spine fusion, clinical experience and preference of orthopaedic surgeon, and prevalence of donor-site morbidities.

Two Surgeries Do Not Always Make a Right: Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBBS) is characterized by chronic pain that persists following spine surgery. In this review, we discuss the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for FBBS treatment and how the clinical use of SCS may be influenced by private manufacturers. While SCS therapy can be promising for the appropriate patient, there remain knowledge gaps in understanding the full potential of SCS technology for delivering optimal therapeutic benefit. We caution that the use of SCS without a complete understanding of the technology may create exploitative situations that private manufacturers can capitalize on while subjecting patients to potentially unnecessary health and financial burdens.

Symptoms and signs possibly indicating segmental, discogenic pain. A fusion study with 18 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Only two out of the five existing randomized studies have reported better results from fusion surgery for chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared to conservative treatment. In these studies the back symptoms of the patients were described simply as "chronic low back pain". One possible reason for the modest results of surgery is the lack of a description of specified symptoms that might be related to a painful segment/disc, and patient selection may therefore be more or less a matter of chance. Previous prospective studies including facet joint injections and discography and eventually MRI have failed to identify patients with a painful segment/disc that will benefit from fusion surgery.

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to analyse in detail the pre-operative symptoms and signs presented by patients who showed substantial relief from their back pain following spinal fusion surgery with the aim of possibly finding a pain pattern indicating segmental, discogenic pain.

METHODS

We analysed 40 consecutive patients, mean age 41 years, with a history of disabling low back pain for a mean of 7.7 years. Before surgery the patients completed a detailed questionnaire concerning various aspects of their back pain, and findings at clinical examination were thoroughly noted. Monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion without internal fixation was performed using microsurgical technique. Outcome was assessed at 1, 2 and 4 years after surgery and finally at 18 years, using self-reporting measures and assessment by an independent examiner. Assessment at 18 years applied the Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders Questionnaire and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

According to the independent observer's assessment at two years 27 of the 40 patients were much improved. Analysis of the pre-operative depiction of the back symptoms of this group revealed a rather uniform pattern, the most important being: dominating back pain originating in the midline of the spine, with a dull, aching character and stabbing pain in the same area provoked by sudden movements. Most patients in this group also had diffuse pain radiation of various extension down one or both legs and often bladder dysfunction with frequency. At clinical examination, localized interspinal tenderness was observed within the spinal area in question and the patient's back pain was provoked by pressure in that area and by tapping a neighbouring spinous process. At 18 years after surgery 19 patients assessed themselves as much improved. At that time 5 of them had pension due to age, 7 early pension, one worked full time and six patients part time. Eleven patients were re-operated due to defect bony healing.

CONCLUSIONS

The results may suggest that the use of a detailed symptom analysis and clinical examination may make it possible to select a subgroup of patients within the CLBP group likely to have better outcome following fusion surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

The next step would be to execute prospective studies and if our findings concerning back pain details and signs among CLPB patients can be confirmed this can provide for more accurate selection of patients suitable for fusion surgery.

Is it safe to perform lumbar spine surgery on patients over eighty five?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerance of lumbar spine surgery in patients over 85.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients over 85 years of age with LSS who underwent decompression surgery with or without fusion between February 2011 and July 2014 were included. Comorbidities, autonomy (Activities of Daily Life and Braden scales), surgical parameters and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) were collected. A telephone survey was performed to assess survival and patients' satisfaction at last follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 27.4 ± 7.6 months (range, 18-65). Mean age was 87.5 ± 2.7 years (range, 85-97). Mean ADLs and Braden scores were, respectively, 4.3 ± 1.2 and 20.2 ± 1.4. Fifteen patients had associated spondylolisthesis. Nineteen minor complications (grade I and II, 38.7%), five moderate complications (grade III, 10.2%) and six major complications (grade IV and V, 12.2%) occurred. The perioperative mortality rate was 0.02%. At last follow-up, 41 patients were very satisfied (83.7%), five patients were satisfied (10.2%) and three patients were not satisfied (6.1%). Fusion did not affect the incidence of complications (p = 0.3) nor the average number of complications per patient (p = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

Advanced age should not be a contraindication to lumbar spine surgery provided careful preoperative selection is performed. This study reported a high satisfaction rate and a low mortality rate at the price of a high number of complications, most of which being minor.

Treatment for chronic low back pain: the focus should change to multimodal management that reflects the underlying pain mechanisms

Chronic low back pain: Chronic pain is the most common cause for people to utilize healthcare resources and has a considerable impact upon patients' lives. The most prevalent chronic pain condition is chronic low back pain (CLBP). CLBP may be nociceptive or neuropathic, or may incorporate both components. The presence of a neuropathic component is associated with more intense pain of longer duration, and a higher prevalence of co-morbidities. However, many physicians' knowledge of chronic pain mechanisms is currently limited and there are no universally accepted treatment guidelines, so the condition is not particularly well managed.

DIAGNOSIS

Diagnosis should begin with a focused medical history and physical examination, to exclude serious spinal pathology that may require evaluation by an appropriate specialist. Most patients have non-specific CLBP, which cannot be attributed to a particular cause. It is important to try and establish whether a neuropathic component is present, by combining the findings of physical and neurological examinations with the patient's history. This may prove difficult, however, even when using screening instruments. Multimodal management: The multifactorial nature of CLBP indicates that the most logical treatment approach is multimodal: i.e. integrated multidisciplinary therapy with co-ordinated somatic and psychotherapeutic elements. As both nociceptive and neuropathic components may be present, combining analgesic agents with different mechanisms of action is a rational treatment modality. Individually tailored combination therapy can improve analgesia whilst reducing the doses of constituent agents, thereby lessening the incidence of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper outlines the development of CLBP and the underlying mechanisms involved, as well as providing information on diagnosis and the use of a wide range of pharmaceutical agents in managing the condition (including NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids and anticonvulsants), supplemented by appropriate non-pharmacological measures such as exercise programs, manual therapies, behavioral therapies, interventional pain management and traction. Surgery may be appropriate in carefully selected patients.

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE TREATMENT OF DISC HERNIATIONS

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the results of treatment of patients with low back pain and radiculalgia resulting from disc herniation associated with disc degeneration through instrumentation with pedicle screws and dynamic rod, with root release and without diskectomy compared with other non-instrumented techniques (microdiskectomy with or without foraminotomy). Methods: This is a retrospective descriptive study of interventions for patients with herniated discs in the Traumatology and Neurosurgery that used the following variables: age, sex, type of technique, surgical time, time of evolution, degree of satisfaction, and complications. Two groups were formed: instrumentation with dynamic rods and non-instrumented techniques, comparing the results of each group. The software used was the SPSS v20.0. Results: We presented 142 interventions carried out between 2009 and 2012, 86 with dynamic instrumentation and 56 by other decompression techniques without instrumentation. No statistically significant differences were observed between age and sex groups and time elapsed until intervention. We found statistically significant differences (p=0.001) in surgical time, which was lower in the instrumented technique. No significant differences were found in complications between the techniques in both re-operations and in infections. Conclusions: In this study, we found no significant differences between the use of instrumentation with dynamic rods with respect to other non-instrumented surgical techniques in the treatment of herniated discs over 6 months of evolution or the complications and the degree of the patients' satisfaction.

Biologically based therapy for the intervertebral disk: who is the patient?

The intervertebral disk (IVD) is a fascinating and resilient tissue compartment given the myriad of functions that it performs as well as its unique anatomy. The IVD must tolerate immense loads, protect the spinal cord, and contribute considerable flexibility and strength to the spinal column. In addition, as a consequence of its anatomical and physiological configuration, a unique characteristic of the IVD is that it also provides a barrier to metastatic disease. However, when injured and/or the subject of significant degenerative change, the IVD can be the source of substantial pain and disability. Considerable efforts have been made over the past several decades with respect to regenerating or at least modulating degenerative changes affecting the IVD through the use of many biological agents such as growth factors, hydrogels, and the use of plant sterols and even spices common to Ayurvedic medicine. More recently stem/progenitor and autologous chondrocytes have been used mostly in animal models of disk disease but also a few trials involving humans. At the end of the day if biological therapies are to offer benefit to the patient, the outcomes must be improved function and/or less pain and also must be improvements upon measures that are already in clinical practice. Here some of the challenges posed by the degenerative IVD and a summary of some of the regenerative attempts both in vitro and in vivo are discussed within the context of the vital question: "Who is the patient?"