1
|
Lewandrowski KU, Yeung A, Lorio MP, Yang H, Ramírez León JF, Sánchez JAS, Fiorelli RKA, Lim KT, Moyano J, Dowling Á, Sea Aramayo JM, Park JY, Kim HS, Zeng J, Meng B, Gómez FA, Ramirez C, De Carvalho PST, Rodriguez Garcia M, Garcia A, Martínez EE, Gómez Silva IM, Valerio Pascua JE, Duchén Rodríguez LM, Meves R, Menezes CM, Carelli LE, Cristante AF, Amaral R, de Sa Carneiro G, Defino H, Yamamoto V, Kateb B. Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis. J Pers Med 2023; 13:jpm13050710. [PMID: 37240880 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13050710] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2023] [Revised: 03/31/2023] [Accepted: 04/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
- Center for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85712, USA
- Department of Orthopaedics, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá 111321, Colombia
- Department of Orthopedics at Hospital Universitário Gaffree Guinle Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, R. Mariz e Barros, 775-Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro 20270-004, Brazil
- Brain Technology and Innovation Park, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, USA
| | - Anthony Yeung
- Desert Institute for Spine Care, 1635 E Myrtle Ave Suite 400, Phoenix, AZ 85020, USA
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, 915 Camino de Salud NE Albuquerque, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA
| | - Morgan P Lorio
- Advanced Orthopedics, 499 East Central Parkway, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701, USA
| | - Huilin Yang
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou 215031, China
| | - Jorge Felipe Ramírez León
- Department of Orthopaedics, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá 111321, Colombia
- Minimally Invasive Spine Center Bogotá D.C. Colombia, Reina Sofía Clinic Bogotá D.C. Colombia, Bogotá 110141, Colombia
| | | | - Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli
- Department of General and Specialized Surgery, Gaffrée e Guinle University Hospital, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Rio de Janeiro 20000-000, Brazil
| | - Kang Taek Lim
- Good Doctor Teun Teun Spine Hospital, Seoul 775 , Republic of Korea
| | - Jaime Moyano
- Torres Médicas Hospital Metropolitano, San Gabriel y Nicolás Arteta Torre Médica 3, Piso 5, Quito 170521, Ecuador
| | - Álvaro Dowling
- DWS Spine Clinic Center, CENTRO EL ALBA-Cam. El Alba 9500, Of. A402, Región Metropolitana, Las Condes 9550000, Chile
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto (FMRP) da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto 14040-900, Brazil
| | | | - Jeong-Yoon Park
- Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 731, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyeun-Sung Kim
- Department of Neurosurgery, Nanoori Hospital Gangnam Hospital, Seoul 731, Republic of Korea
| | - Jiancheng Zeng
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
| | - Bin Meng
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215005, China
| | | | - Carolina Ramirez
- Centro de Cirugía Mínima Invasiva-CECIMIN, Avenida Carrera 45 # 104-76, Bogotá 0819, Colombia
| | - Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho
- Department of Neurosurgery, Pain and Spine Minimally Invasive Surgery Service at Gaffree Guinle University Hospital, Rio de Janeiro 20270-004, Brazil
| | - Manuel Rodriguez Garcia
- Spine Clinic, The American-Bitish Cowdray Medical Center I.A.P, Campus Santa Fe, Mexico City 05370, Mexico
| | - Alfonso Garcia
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Espalda Saludable, Hospital Angeles Tijuana, Tijuana 22010, Mexico
| | - Eulalio Elizalde Martínez
- Department of Spine Surgery, Hospital de Ortopedia, UMAE "Dr. Victorio de la Fuente Narvaez", Ciudad de México 07760, Mexico
| | - Iliana Margarita Gómez Silva
- Department of Spine Surgery, Hospital Ángeles Universidad, Av Universidad 1080, Col Xoco, Del Benito Juárez, Ciudad de México 03339, Mexico
| | | | - Luis Miguel Duchén Rodríguez
- Center for Neurological Diseases, Bolivian Spine Association, Spine Chapter of Latin American Federation of Neurosurgery Societies, Public University of El Alto, La Paz 0201-0220, Bolivia
| | - Robert Meves
- Santa Casa Spine Center, São Paulo 09015-000, Brazil
| | - Cristiano M Menezes
- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
| | | | | | - Rodrigo Amaral
- Instituto de Patologia da Coluna (IPC), Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto (FMRP) da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo 14040-900, Brazil
| | | | - Helton Defino
- Hospital das Clínicas of Ribeirao Preto Medical School, Sao Paulo University, Ribeirão Preto 14040-900, Brazil
| | - Vicky Yamamoto
- Brain Technology and Innovation Park, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, USA
- The USC Caruso Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
- USC-Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
- World Brain Mapping Foundation (WBMF), Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, USA
| | - Babak Kateb
- Brain Technology and Innovation Park, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, USA
- World Brain Mapping Foundation (WBMF), Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, USA
- Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics (SBMT), Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, USA
- National Center for Nano Bio Electronic (NCNBE), Los Angeles, CA 90272, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhang Y, Zhou T, Gu Y, Che W, Zhang L, Wang Y. Contralateral bridge fixation of freehand minimally invasive pedicle screws combined with unilateral MIS-TLIF vs. open TLIF in the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases: A five years retrospective study and finite element analysis. Front Surg 2022; 9:1049260. [DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1049260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy, safety, feasibility and biomechanical stability of contralateral bridge fixation of freehand minimally invasive pedicle screws (Freehand MIPS) combined with unilateral minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) (smile-face surgery) and open TLIF for the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).MethodsFrom January 2013 to January 2016, clinical data of multi-segmental (2- or 3-level) LDDs receiving smile-face surgery or open TLIF were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The back and leg pain VAS and ODI were used to assess clinical outcomes preoperatively and postoperatively. The MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the satisfaction of patient. The disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis angle (SLA) were measured before and after surgery. We used patient's CT data to establish the finite element model of smile-face surgery and open TLIF, and analyze biomechanical stability of two methods.ResultsSmile-face surgery group showed shorter operation time, shorter incision, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay than open TLIF (P < 0.05). The back VAS in smile-face surgery group was significantly lower than that in open TLIF immediately and 3 months after surgery, and no significant difference was observed 1 year, 2 years and 5 years after surgery. There was no significant difference in the leg pain VAS and ODI between both groups after surgery. No significant difference was observed between two groups in the DH, LL and SLA. At 5-year follow-up, grade I or II fusion was achieved in 99.00% (100/101) segments of smile-face surgery group and 97.67% (84/86) segments of open TLIF group according to Bridwell system. The complication rate of open TLIF was higher than that of smile-face surgery (24.32% vs. 0%, P < 0.01). After verification, the established finite element model can accurately simulate the biological structure of lumbar spine and there was no significant difference in biomechanical stability between two methods.ConclusionsSmile-face surgery has some advantages over open TLIF including smaller aggression, less blood loss, and lower cost, indicating that it is a good choice of treatment for multi-segmental LDDs. Both methods can achieve good biomechanical stability.
Collapse
|
3
|
Cruz A, Ropper AE, Xu DS, Bohl M, Reece EM, Winocour SJ, Buchanan E, Kaung G. Failure in Lumbar Spinal Fusion and Current Management Modalities. Semin Plast Surg 2021; 35:54-62. [PMID: 33994880 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1726102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Lumbar spinal fusion is a commonly performed procedure to stabilize the spine, and the frequency with which this operation is performed is increasing. Multiple factors are involved in achieving successful arthrodesis. Systemic factors include patient medical comorbidities-such as rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis-and smoking status. Surgical site factors include choice of bone graft material, number of fusion levels, location of fusion bed, adequate preparation of fusion site, and biomechanical properties of the fusion construct. Rates of successful fusion can vary from 65 to 100%, depending on the aforementioned factors. Diagnosis of pseudoarthrosis is confirmed by imaging studies, often a combination of static and dynamic radiographs and computed tomography. Once pseudoarthrosis is identified, patient factors should be optimized whenever possible and a surgical plan implemented to provide the best chance of successful revision arthrodesis with the least amount of surgical risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Cruz
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | | | - David S Xu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Michael Bohl
- Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Edward M Reece
- Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.,Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Sebastian J Winocour
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Edward Buchanan
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.,Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Geoffrey Kaung
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hegmann KT, Travis R, Andersson GBJ, Belcourt RM, Carragee EJ, Eskay-Auerbach M, Galper J, Goertz M, Haldeman S, Hooper PD, Lessenger JE, Mayer T, Mueller KL, Murphy DR, Tellin WG, Thiese MS, Weiss MS, Harris JS. Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders. J Occup Environ Med 2021; 63:e215-e241. [PMID: 33769405 DOI: 10.1097/jom.0000000000001983] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders. METHODS Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders. RESULTS Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations. CONCLUSION Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kurt T Hegmann
- American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Elk Grove Village, Illinois
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation Is a Practical Adjunctive Therapy for Fusion in Spine Surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33:255-257. [PMID: 31580260 DOI: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000880] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
6
|
Bretelle F, Fabre C, Golka M, Pauly V, Roth B, Bechadergue V, Blanc J. Capacitive-resistive radiofrequency therapy to treat postpartum perineal pain: A randomized study. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0231869. [PMID: 32339169 PMCID: PMC7185583 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2019] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the reduction of perineal pain after vaginal deliveries by capacitive resistive radiofrequency therapy (RF). Methods We conducted a double-blind randomized study in University Hospital Centre in France. We included women presenting either perineal tears or an episiotomy after vaginal delivery (instrumental assisted or not). The participants were randomly assigned to RF or not at day 1 and day 2 postpartum. The primary outcome was pain evaluated as visual analog scale (VAS) score >4 at rest on day 2 after the treatment. Secondary outcomes included discomfort and pain while walking and seating two days after treatment, type of pain two days after treatment and analgesics intake two days after treatment, sexual intercourse retake and painful of intercourse were also assessed by phone call 30 days after delivery. We performed univariate analysis and multivariable regressions adjusting on the value of the outcome at baseline to improve precision of the estimated intervention effect. Results Between June 1, 2017 and October 8, 2017, the RF group included 29 women compared with 31 women in the group without RF. There was no significant difference on VAS >4 between the two groups (13.8% vs. 9.7% p = 0.69; difference = 4.1%, 95%CI -12.2%- 20.4%); consumption of paracetamol was lower in the RF group (978.3 mg (sd = 804.5) vs 1703.7 mg (sd = 1381.6), p = 0.035; difference = -725.3 mg, 95%CI -1359.6 - -91.3). Multivariate analysis showed no association between RF and pain. Nevertheless, we found an association between RF and discomfort while walking (adjusted OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07–0.90; p = 0.03). Conclusion VAS>4 at day 2 was not different in the experimental and the control groups but RF was associated with less perineal discomfort while walking and lower consumption of paracetamol after delivery. Clinical trial registrations The study was registered in the Clinical Government trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03172286?term=bretelle&rank=2) under the number NCT03172286.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florence Bretelle
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, AP-HM, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France
- Unité de Recherche sur les Maladies Infectieuses Tropicales et Emergentes, UM63, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, INSERM 1095, Marseille, France
| | - Chantal Fabre
- Midwife school, Faculty of medical and paramedical sciences, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
| | - Marine Golka
- Midwife school, Faculty of medical and paramedical sciences, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
| | - Vanessa Pauly
- Medical Evaluation, Department of Public Health, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, AMU, Aix- Marseille Université, Marseille, France
- EA 3279, CEReSS, Health Service Research and Quality of Life Center, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
| | - Brimbelle Roth
- Medical Evaluation, Department of Public Health, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, AMU, Aix- Marseille Université, Marseille, France
| | - Valérie Bechadergue
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, AP-HM, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France
| | - Julie Blanc
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, AP-HM, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France
- EA 3279, CEReSS, Health Service Research and Quality of Life Center, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Combined magnetic field results in higher fusion rates than pulsed electromagnetic field bone stimulation after thoracolumbar fusion surgery. J Clin Neurosci 2020; 74:115-119. [PMID: 32067830 DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.02.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2019] [Accepted: 02/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bone growth stimulators have been used as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery in efforts to increase fusion rates. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent thoracolumbar fusion surgeries by a single surgeon. Patients were then separated into three groups; pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMF), combined magnetic field stimulation (CMF) or no stimulation (NS), and computed tomography radiographic results at least 1 year after surgery were compared (solid fusion, stable nonunion, and pseudarthrosis). RESULTS A total of 60 patients were included; 16 (26.7%) used PEMF, 24 (40.0%) used CMF, and 20 (33.3%) had NS. There were no significant differences in patient demographics. There was no difference in the mean fusion levels (p = 0. 477). Solid fusion was achieved in 11/16 (68.8%) PEMF, 21/24 (87.5%) CMF, and 20/20 (100.0%) NS patients. Stable nonunion was displayed in 2/24 (8.3%) CMF, and zero PEMF and NS patients. There were 5/16 (31.3%) PEMF, 1/24 (4.2%) CMF, and zero NS patients demonstrating radiologic pseudarthrosis. There was a statistically significant difference between PEMF and CMF (p = 0.017) and between PEMF and NS (p = 0.006) groups. No statistical difference was found between CMF and NS (p = 1.000). CONCLUSION This is the first study to compare PEMF and CMF bone growth stimulators in patients with degenerative pathologies who underwent thoracolumbar spinal fusions. Overall, the addition of these bone growth stimulators does not improve fusion outcomes, although CMF appears superior to PEMF.
Collapse
|
8
|
Topping-Off Technology versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2020; 2020:2953128. [PMID: 32420333 PMCID: PMC7201464 DOI: 10.1155/2020/2953128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2019] [Accepted: 11/05/2019] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
The treatment effects of topping-off technique were still controversial. This study compared all available data on postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes of topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed. Variations included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease (CASD), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, and complication rates. Sixteen studies, including 1372 cases, were selected for the analysis. Rates of proximal RASD (P=0.0004), distal RASD (P=0.03), postoperative VAS-B (P=0.0001), postoperative VAS-L (P=0.02), EBL (P=0.007), and duration of surgery (P=0.02) were significantly lower in topping-off group than those in PLIF group. Postoperative ODI after 3 years (P=0.04) in the topping-off group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group. There was no significant difference in the rates of CASD (P=0.06), postoperative GLL (P=0.14), postoperative ODI within 3 years (P=0.24), and postoperative JOA (P=0.70) and in reoperation rates (P=0.32) and complication rates (P=0.27) between topping-off group and PLIF. The results confirmed that topping-off technique could effectively prevent ASDs after lumbar internal fixation. However, this effect is effective in preventing RASD. Topping-off technique is more effective in improving the subjective feelings of patients rather than objective motor functions compared with PLIF. With the development of surgical techniques, both topping-off technique and PLIF are safe.
Collapse
|
9
|
Wang W, Sun X, Zhang T, Sun S, Kong C, Ding J, Li X, Lu S. Comparison between topping-off technology and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99:e18885. [PMID: 32000392 PMCID: PMC7004705 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000018885] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The difference between topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in postoperative outcomes is still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare all available data on outcomes of topping-off technique and PLIF in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS Articles in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were reviewed. Parameters included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease, range of motion (ROM), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analog scale (VAS), visual analog scale of back, (VAS-B) and visual analog scale leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, complication rates. RESULTS Rates of proximal RASD (P = .001) and CASD (P = .03), postoperative VAS-B (P = .0001) were significantly lower in topping-off group than that in PLIF group. There was no significant difference in distal RASD (P = .07), postoperative GLL (P = .71), postoperative upper intervertebral ROM (P = .19), postoperative VAS-L (P = .08), DOI (P = .30), postoperative JOA (P = .18), EBL (P = .21) and duration of surgery (P = .49), reoperation rate (P = .16), complication rates (P = .31) between topping-off group and PLIF. CONCLUSIONS Topping-off can effectively prevent the adjacent segment disease from progressing after lumbar internal fixation, which is be more effective in proximal segments. Topping-off technique was more effective in improving subjective feelings of patents rather than objective motor functions. However, no significant difference between topping-off technique and PLIF can be found in the rates of complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Wang
- Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases
- Capital Medical University, China
| | - Xiangyao Sun
- Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases
- Capital Medical University, China
| | - Tongtong Zhang
- Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University
- Capital Medical University, China
- Department of Orthopaedics, ChuiYangLiu Hospital affiliated to Tsinghua University
| | - Siyuan Sun
- Department of Interdisciplinary, Life Science, Purdue University
| | - Chao Kong
- Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases
- Capital Medical University, China
| | - Junzhe Ding
- Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases
- Capital Medical University, China
| | - Xiangyu Li
- Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases
- Capital Medical University, China
| | - Shibao Lu
- Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
D'Oro A, Buser Z, Brodke DS, Park JB, Yoon ST, Youssef JA, Meisel HJ, Radcliff KE, Hsieh P, Wang JC. Trends and Costs of External Electrical Bone Stimulators and Grafting Materials in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Asian Spine J 2018; 12:973-980. [PMID: 30322261 PMCID: PMC6284136 DOI: 10.31616/asj.2018.12.6.973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2018] [Accepted: 04/20/2018] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Study Design Retrospective review. Purpose To identify the trends in stimulator use, pair those trends with various grafting materials, and determine the influence of stimulators on the risk of revision surgery. Overview of Literature A large number of studies has reported beneficial effects of electromagnetic energy in healing long bone fractures. However, there are few clinical studies regarding the use of electrical stimulators in spinal fusion. Methods We used insurance billing codes to identify patients with lumbar disc degeneration who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Comparisons between patients who did and did not receive electrical stimulators following surgery were performed using logistic regression analysis, chi-square test, and odds ratio (OR) analysis. Results Approximately 19% of the patients (495/2,613) received external stimulators following ALIF surgery. There was a slight increase in stimulator use from 2008 to 2014 (multi-level R2=0.08, single-level R2=0.05). Patients who underwent multi-level procedures were more likely to receive stimulators than patients who underwent single-level procedures (p<0.05; OR, 3.72; 95% confidence interval, 3.02–4.57). Grafting options associated with most frequent stimulator use were bone marrow aspirates (BMA) plus autograft or allograft for single-level and allograft alone for multi-level procedures. In both cohorts, patients treated with bone morphogenetic proteins were least likely to receive electrical stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received stimulation generally had higher reimbursements. Concurrent posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) (ALIF+PLF) increased the likelihood of receiving stimulators (p<0.05). Patients who received electrical stimulators had similar revision rates as those who did not receive stimulation (p>0.05), except those in the multilevel ALIF+PLF cohort, wherein the patients who underwent stimulation had higher rates of revision surgery. Conclusions Concurrent PLF or multi-level procedures increased patients’ likelihood of receiving stimulators, however, the presence of comorbidities did not. Patients who received BMA plus autograft or allograft were more likely to receive stimulation. Patients with and without bone stimulators had similar rates of revision surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony D'Oro
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Zorica Buser
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Darrel Scott Brodke
- Department of Orthopedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Jong-Beom Park
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Uijongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijongbu, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | - Patrick Hsieh
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jeffrey Chun Wang
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Comparison of bilateral versus unilateral decompression incision of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases. INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS 2018; 42:2835-2842. [PMID: 29754188 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3974-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2017] [Accepted: 05/04/2018] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
|
12
|
Ducis K, Florman JE, Rughani AI. Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines. World Neurosurg 2016; 90:322-339. [PMID: 26947727 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2015] [Revised: 02/09/2016] [Accepted: 02/11/2016] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The rate of neurosurgery guidelines publications was compared over time with all other specialties. Neurosurgical guidelines and quality of supporting evidence were then analyzed and compared by subspecialty. METHODS The authors first performed a PubMed search for "Neurosurgery" and "Guidelines." This was then compared against searches performed for each specialty of the American Board of Medical Specialties. The second analysis was an inventory of all neurosurgery guidelines published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Guidelines clearinghouse. All Class I evidence and Level 1 recommendations were compared for different subspecialty topics. RESULTS When examined from 1970-2010, the rate of increase in publication of neurosurgery guidelines was about one third of all specialties combined (P < 0.0001). However, when only looking at the past 5 years the publication rate of neurosurgery guidelines has converged upon that for all specialties. The second analysis identified 49 published guidelines for assessment. There were 2733 studies cited as supporting evidence, with only 243 of these papers considered the highest class of evidence (8.9%). These papers were used to generate 697 recommendations, of which 170 (24.4%) were considered "Level 1" recommendations. CONCLUSION Although initially lagging, the publication of neurosurgical guidelines has recently increased at a rate comparable with that of other specialties. However, the quality of the evidence cited consists of a relatively low number of high-quality studies from which guidelines are created. Wider implications of this must be considered when defining and measuring quality of clinical performance in neurosurgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katrina Ducis
- Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
| | - Jeffrey E Florman
- Neuroscience Institute, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Anand I Rughani
- Neuroscience Institute, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Center for Excellence in Neuroscience, University of New England, Biddeford, Maine, USA
| |
Collapse
|