The Efficiency of Simultaneous Systemic and Topical Use of Tranexamic Acid in Spinal Fusion Surgery

Comparative Study Between Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy and Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L5/S1 Disc Herniation

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED) for treating L5/S1 disc herniation.

METHODS

Patients with L5/S1 disc herniation treated with UBED (n = 46) and PIED (n = 50) in our hospital during the same period were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcome, radiographic parameters, and complications of each group were collected and evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 14.11 ± 3.47 months in the UBED group and 14.52 ± 5.37 months in the PIED group. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale score for the leg (P = 0.836) or lumbar scores (P = 0.335) between PIED and UBED group at preoperative, 1-day postoperative, and last follow-up point. Within the same group, there were significant differences in visual analog scale score for the leg (P < 0.001) and lumbar scores (P < 0.001) compared pairwise at 3 time points. Oswestry Disability Index scores of both groups showed significant improvement at the last follow-up (P < 0.001, P < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction rates (97.8% vs. 96%) between the 2 groups on the basis of the MacNab criteria. The percentage of facet joint preservation was 96.74 ± 9.10% in the UBED group and 99.22 ± 1.52% in the PIED group. The total blood loss and hospitalization cost was greater in the UBED group. One patient in both groups showed postoperative hematoma. A dural tear occurred in UBED group and a never root injury occurred in the PIED group.

CONCLUSIONS

UBED indicates similar short-term efficacy compared with PIED for treating L5/S1 disc herniation. No difference was found in facet joint preservation between the 2 groups. We believe the increased cost of UBED as the result of surgical consumables will decrease in the future.

Topical tranexamic acid (TXA) is non-inferior to intravenous TXA in adult spine surgery: a meta-analysis

Tranexamic acid (TXA) has long been utilized in spine surgery and can be administered through intravenous (IV) and topical routes. Although, topical and IV administration of TXA are both effective in decreasing blood loss during spine surgery, complications like deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism have been reported with the use of intravenous TXA (ivTXA). These potential complications may be mitigated through the use of topical TXA (tTXA). To assess optimal dosing protocols and efficacy of topical TXA in spine surgery, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov were queried for original research on the use of tTXA in adult patients undergoing spine surgery. Data parameters analyzed included blood loss, transfusion rate, thromboembolic, and other complications. Data was synthesized and confidence evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Nineteen studies were included in the final analysis with 2197 patients. Of the 18 published studies, 9 (50%) displayed high levels of evidence. Topical TXA showed a trend towards a lower risk of transfusion and complications. Protocols that used 1g tTXA showed a significantly reduced risk for transfusion when compared to controls (risk ratio -1.05, 95% CI (-1.62, -0.48); P = 0.94, I2 = 0%). Complications associated with tTXA included DVTs and wound infections. Topical TXA was non-inferior to intravenous TXA with similar efficacy and complication profiles for bleeding control in spine surgery; however, more studies are needed to discern benefits and risks.