Commentary on: The role of surgery for treatment of low back pain: Insights from the randomized controlled SPORT trials

What Can Spine Surgeons Do to Improve Patient Care and Avoid Medical Negligence Suits?

Background:

Why do patients sue following spine surgery? Here we reviewed some of the most frequent reasons for medical negligence suits against surgeons, adjunctive medical personnel, and or institutions/hospitals.

Methods:

Summarizing the multiple reasons for suits against spine surgeons, their colleagues/consultants, and hospitals should help surgeons identify the problems leading to suits, and improve patient care.

Results:

Several of the most common reasons for medical negligence suits include: lack of informed consent, ghost surgery, failure to diagnose and treat (e.g. including preoperative, perioperative, and post-surgical complications), performing unnecessarily risky, excessive and/or unnecessary surgery; failure to provide adequate postoperative care; absent or inadequate intraoperative neural physiological monitoring; and spoliation (e.g. fraudulent surgical, office, and/or hospital notes/records).

Conclusions:

There are many reasons why patients sue their spine surgeons. Being aware of the factors that lead to suits, spine surgeons should learn to provide better preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care, and, thus, limit perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression by Using Rigid Bendable Burr for Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis: Technique and Clinical Outcome

Background

Open laminectomy has been regarded as the standard surgical procedure for lumbar lateral recess stenosis during the last decades. Although percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression has led to successful results comparable with open decompression, its application in LSS with is still challenging and technically demanding. Here, we report the surgical procedure and preliminary clinical outcomes of transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) by using flexible burr for lumbar lateral recess stenosis.

Method

A retrospective study was performed for the patients with lumbar lateral recess stenosis receiving PELD by using flexible burr. The indications of surgery were moderate to severe stenosis, persistent neurological symptoms, and failure of conservative treatment. The patients with mechanical back pain, more than grade I spondylolisthesis, or radiographic signs of instability were not included. Before the operation, the transforaminal epidural lidocaine injections were carried out to make the diagnosis more precise and accurate. Radiologic findings were investigated, and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and modified Macnab criteria were analyzed at the different time of preoperation, postoperation, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months.

Results

The follow-up period was 12 months. The mean VAS scores for back and leg pain immediately improved from 7.9 ± 1.2 to 2.8± 1.3, 2.4 ± 1.0, and 2.3 ± 1.0, respectively. The mean visual analog scale scores (VAS) for back pain and leg pain were significantly improved after PELD. The preoperative ODI dropped from 69.1 ± 7.3 to 25.9 ± 8.7, 25.0± 6.9, and 24.7 ± 6.4, respectively. The final outcome was excellent in 39.6%, good in 47.9%, fair in 8.3%, and poor in 4.17%. 87.5% of excellent-to-good ratio was achieved on the basis of Macnab criteria at postoperative 12 months. The complications were limited to transient postoperative dysesthesia (one case), temporary pain aggravation (six cases), and neck pain during the operation (one case).

Conclusion

This observation suggests that the clinical outcomes of PELD for lateral recess stenosis were excellent or showed good results. This minimally invasive technique would be helpful in choosing a surgical method for lateral recess stenosis.

Lumbar stenosis surgery: Spine surgeons not insurance companies should decide when enough is better than too much

Background:

Lumbar surgery for spinal stenosis is the most common spine operation being performed in older patients. Nevertheless, every time we want to schedule surgery, we confront the insurance industry. More often than not they demand patients first undergo epidural steroid injections (ESI); clearly they are not aware of ESI's lack of long-term efficacy. Who put these insurance companies in charge anyway? We did. How? Through performing too many unnecessary or overly extensive spinal operations (e.g., interbody fusions and instrumented fusions) without sufficient clinical and/or radiographic indications.

Methods:

Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with/without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) are being offered decompressions alone and/or unnecessarily extensive interbody and/or instrumented fusions. Furthermore, a cursory review of the literature largely demonstrates comparable outcomes for decompressions alone vs. decompressions/in situ fusions vs. interbody/instrumented fusions.

Results:

Too many older patients are being subjected to unnecessary lumbar spine surgery, some with additional interbody/non instrumented or instrumented fusions, without adequate clinical/neurodiagnostic indications.

Conclusions:

The decision to perform spine surgery for lumbar stenosis/DS, including decompression alone, decompression with non instrumented or instrumented fusion should be in the hands of competent spinal surgeons with their patients’ best outcomes in mind. Presently, insurance companies have stepped into the “void” left by spinal surgeons’ failing to regulate when, what type, and why spinal surgery is being offered to patients with spinal stenosis. Clearly, spine surgeons need to establish guidelines to maximize patient safety and outcomes for lumbar stenosis surgery. We need to remove insurance companies from their present roles as the “spinal police.”