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

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.