Back Pain Visual Analog Scale Scores Research Articles

Comprehensive comparison of three techniques for the treatment of adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion.

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) following lumbar fusion is technically challenging for spine surgeons. Posterolateral open fusion surgery with pedicle screw fixation is an effective way to treat symptomatic ASD with favorable clinical outcomes; however, it is associated with an increased morbidity rate. Therefore, minimally invasive spine surgery is advocated. This study was designed to compare clinical outcomes among patients with symptomatic ASD who underwent percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) with the transforaminal approach, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-PLIF), and PLIF with traditional trajectory screw fixation (TT-PLIF). A retrospective study was conductedon 46 patients (26 men and 20 women; average age 60.8 ± 6.78 years) with symptomatic ASD. The patients were treated with three approaches. The operation time, incision length, time to return to work, complications, and the like were compared among three groups. Intervertebral disc (IVD) space height, angular motion, and vertebral slippage were obtained to assess spine biomechanical stability following surgery. The visual analog scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index were evaluated at preoperation and 1-week, 3-month, and the latest follow-ups. Clinical global outcomes were also estimated using modified MacNab criteria. The operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, and time to return to work for the PTED group were significantly decreased compared with those for the other two groups (P < 0.05). The radiological indicators in the CBT-PLIF group and TT-PLIF group had better biomechanical stability compared with those in the PTED groups at the latest follow-up (P < 0.05). The back pain VAS score in the CBT-PLIF group was significantly decreased compared with those in the other two groups at the latest follow-up (P < 0.05). The good-to-excellent rate was 82.35% in the PTED group, 88.89% in the CBT-PLIF group, and 85.00% in the TT-PLIF group. No serious complications were encountered. Two patients experienced dysesthesia in the PTED group; screw malposition was found in one patient in the CBT-PLIF group. One case with a dural matter tear was observed in the TT-PLIF group. All three approaches can treat patients with symptomatic ASD efficiently and safely. Functional recovery was more accelerated in the PTED group compared with the other approaches in the short term; CBT-PLIF and TT-PLIF can provide superior biomechanical stability to the lumbosacral spine following decompression compared with PTED; however, compared with TT-PLIF, CBT-PLIF can significantly reduce back pain caused by iatrogenic muscle injury and improve functional recovery. Therefore, superior clinical outcomes were achieved in the CBT-PLIF group compared with the PTED and TT-PLIF groups in the long term.

Clinical Effects of Upper Facet Joint En Bloc Resection in the Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery—Two Layers and Two Tunnels Strategy

The upper facet joint en bloc resection is the key step to open the intervertebral foramina for achieving the intervertebral fusion in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. Our purpose is to introduce a upper facet joint resection technique which can avoid injuring the nerve root termed "two layers and two tunnels strategy" in TLIF surgery and to evaluate its clinical effects and neurological safety. All 108 patients who underwent TLIF surgery using two layers and two tunnels strategy between December 2015 and January 2019 were analyzed for postoperative clinical treatment parameter. The visual analogue scale (VAS) method, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and the Macnab scoring system were used to evaluate the clinical effects during post-operative check-ups at 7 days, 3 months, 6 months, and the last follow-up visit. Data were represented by mean and standard deviation, and repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to make comparison. The result noted that, the VAS scores for back pain decreased by 30.13% at 7 days post-operation (3.64 ± 0.86), 63.15% at 3 months (1.92 ± 0.55), 72.17% at 6 months (1.45 ± 0.61) and 70.44% at the last follow-up (1.54 ± 0.62) compared with pre-operation (5.21 ± 0.93). The VAS scores for lower limb pain decreased by 44.22% at 7 days (3.86 ± 0.90), 61.42% at 3 months (2.67 ± 0.72), 66.62% at 6 months (2.31 ± 0.79) and 66.47% at the last follow-up (2.32 ± 0.72) compared with pre-operation (6.92 ± 1.04). The ODI scores decreased by 49.08% at 7 days (32.19 ± 5.13), 67.92% at 3 months (20.28 ± 5.50), 74.00% at 6 months (16.44 ± 4.21) and 75.42% at the last follow-up (15.54 ± 3.85) compared with pre-operation (63.22 ± 7.58). The JOA scores increased by 51.41% at 7 days (18.49 ± 1.48), 69.26% at 3 months (22.35 ± 1.44), 73.28% at 6 months (23.22 ± 1.18) and 77.53% at the last follow-up (24.14 ± 0.99) compared with pre-operation (7.37 ± 1.71). Among 108 cases, there is no neurological complications. Two layers and two tunnels strategy is an effective and safe procedure that can certainly avoid nerve root injury to reduce neurological complication and increase safety of TLIF surgery.

A new method for establishing operative channels in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: Technical notes and preliminary results.

The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique has been widely used in spine surgery. At present, a traditional rigid working channel is available for the UBE system. A metal semicircular canal is located in the working channel. However, due to the metal material of the working channel, arthroscopy and instruments are constrained from moving in UBE surgery. Additionally, an assistant is needed during the procedure to hold the traditional working channel. For simplicity of operation and convenient movement of the arthroscopy and instrument, we describe a new method for establishing operative channels in UBE surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 50patients who underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) from February 2020 to August 2020 via our new method. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were measured preoperatively and 1month, 3months, 6months and 12months postoperatively. Statistical comparisons were made using analysis of covariance and paired t tests. The VAS scores for back pain at the five time points were 5.20 ± 2.57, 1.96 ± 0.95, 1.50 ± 0.84, 1.64 ± 1.08 and 1.18 ± 0.39. The leg pain VAS scores were 7.02 ± 2.25, 2.02 ± 1.27, 1.48 ± 0.89, 1.32 ± 0.79 and 0.88 ± 0.52. The ODI values were 51.08 ± 19.97, 19.62 ± 15.51, 8.26 ± 7.40, and 7.54 ± 6.42 to 3.24 ± 1.10. The postoperative ODIs and VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were significantly lower than those before surgery, and differences were statistically significant (all p< 0.05). The pressure of the closed outflow was significantly higher than that of the open outflow (37.35 ± 13.11mm Hg vs. 24.55 ± 12.64mm Hg p= 0.003). After we tightened the infusion strap to open the outflow, the pressure decreased significantly (26.4 ± 14.08mm Hg vs. 37.35 ± 13.11mm Hg p= 0.015). There were 2cases of complications, including 1case of postoperative recurrence and 1case of dural tears. This study demonstrates the technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of modified channel establishment in UBE surgery.

Evaluation of patient profiles, treatment paradigms and clinical efficacy, and safety outcomes in adult patients with vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency in India: A multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study

Background: Nationwide studies assessing sociodemographic factors associated with poor vitamin D status and efficacy-safety of vitamin D supplementation in Indian clinical practice are limited. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study, patients with vitamin D deficiency (25[OH]D &lt;20 ng/mL)/insufficiency (25[OH]D 21-29 ng/mL) were enrolled at 9 sites across India and prescribed vitamin D supplements per routine practice. Primary endpoints were patient profiles associated with vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency and change in visual analog scale (VAS) scores for clinical signs/symptoms from baseline to weeks 4 and 8. Key secondary endpoints were prescription pattern of vitamin D supplements and incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs)/serious ADRs. Change in systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP [hypertensive patients]) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c [diabetic patients]) were assessed from baseline to weeks 8 and 12, respectively. Paired t test was used to assess statistical significance, except for patient profile association, where analysis of variance model was used. Results: Of 201 enrolled patients (mean [standard deviation] age: 43.4 [14.52] years), 61.7% were women. Most demographic and anthropometric factors, except for current sunscreen use (p=0.0297) and socioeconomic status (p=0.0222), were not significantly associated with vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency. Upper-lower class had significantly higher odds (p=0.033) for vitamin D deficiency versus insufficiency versus lower class. Most of the patients were prescribed 60000 IU/week orally. VAS scores for bone and lower back pain, bone loss, low bone mineral density, and muscle pain were significantly reduced at weeks 4 and 8 (p&lt;0.001). SBP/DBP of hypertensive patients and HbA1c of diabetic patients were also significantly decreased (p&lt;0.05). No ADRs/serious ADRs were observed. Conclusion: Sunscreen use and socioeconomic status were significantly associated with vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency. Vitamin D supplementation improved clinical symptoms, HbA1c levels (diabetic patients), and SBP/DBP (hypertensive patients), without any adverse safety outcomes. Nevertheless, studies with long-term follow-up and larger sample sizes are warranted.

Clinical Efficacy of Bilateral Decompression Using Biportal Endoscopic Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

The study purpose was to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in terms of surgical trauma and short-to medium-term postoperative results. Forty-nine patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (25 underwent ULIF, 24 underwent MIS-TLIF) who were treated between May 2019 and October 2021, were included in this retrospective analysis. We compared the 2 groups' blood loss, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and slip percentage (SP). The modified Macnab score was obtained at the last follow-up. On the postoperative day, the CRP levels (P < 0.05) were considerably lower in the ULIF group than those in the MIS-TLIF group. In addition, the ULIF group had significantly decreased intraoperative blood loss (P= 0.00) and postoperative blood loss (P= 0.00). After surgery, there was significant improvement in both groups in the VAS scores for low back and leg pain and in the ODI scores (P < 0.05). Two weeks after surgery, the ODI and VAS scores for low back pain of the ULIF group were considerably lower than those of the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rates of the Macnab criteria between the 2 groups were not significantly different at the last follow-up (P= 0.95). The ULIF technique can effectively treat short-segment lumbar degenerative diseases and is a feasible alternative to the traditional minimally invasive surgery.

Factors influencing the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar spinal canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for spinal surgery. However, the factors that influence its long-term (>10 years) outcomes remain unknown. DESIGNThis is a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study. PURPOSEThis study aimed to determine factors that influence the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients aged ≤75 years with single L4/5 level lumbar canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis prospectively underwent instrumentation surgery at two hospitals between May 1, 2003, and April 30, 2012; the final follow-up examination was on May 20, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURESThe following data were collected: modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, JOA score recovery rate, visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back and leg pain, and scores from eight short-form 36 (SF-36) subscales preoperatively and at the final follow-up examination. METHODSSpearman's correlation analysis and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to examine preoperative factors that affect the JOA score recovery rate in patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis at the L4/5 level due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. RESULTSA total of 42 patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and had a long-term follow-up period were included. Of these, 25 and 17 underwent posterolateral fusion and Graf stabilization, respectively. The mean postoperative follow-up duration was 12.5 years. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed that the long-term recovery rate was correlated with the preoperative VAS score for low back pain. In the univariate regression analysis, sex, preoperative VAS score for low back pain, and the SF-36 general health score were significantly associated with the long-term recovery rate. Meanwhile, the multiple stepwise regression analysis identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate. CONCLUSIONSThis study identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate following instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Therefore, when performing posterolateral fusion or Graf stabilization for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, attention should be paid to the intensity of preoperative low back pain and considerations should be given to whether these procedures can improve the patient's symptoms in the long term.

A single-arm retrospective study of the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Patients who underwent UBE-TLIF due to single-segment LSS between August 2019 and July 2021 were retrospectively included in the study. Clinical outcomes evaluated include operative time, estimated blood loss (including postoperative drainage), time to ambulation, postoperative hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified Macnab criteria. Interbody bony fusion at the index level was assessed using Bridwell grading criteria. A total of 73 patients (29 males and 44 females) were enrolled in this study. All surgeries were successfully performed without intraoperative conversion to open surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed optimal direct neural decompression after UBE-TLIF. The mean operative time was 150.89 ± 15.58 min. The mean estimated blood loss was 126.03 ± 17.85 ml (postoperative drainage was 34.84 ± 8.31 ml). Time to ambulation was 2.0 ± 0.75 days after the procedure. Postoperatively, the mean hospital stay was 5.96 ± 1.38 days. VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA, and ODI were significantly improved postoperatively compared with those before the operation, and differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Excellent and good outcomes were reported by 87.67% of patients according to the modified Macnab criteria at the final follow-up. A total of nine perioperative complications occurred, with an incidence of 12.33%. X-ray or computerized tomography (CT) 6 months after the procedure showed that 37 cases (50.68%) presented with segmental fusion, 30 cases (41.10%) showed incomplete fusion, and 6 cases (8.22%) showed no signs of fusion. However, bony fusion was achieved in all cases at the final follow-up. UBE-TLIF for LSS has the advantages of less surgical invasiveness and fast postoperative recovery.

Clinical comparison of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation.

To compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH). From January 2020 to November 2021, 62 patients with single-level LDH were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent spinal surgeries at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University and Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University. Among them, 30 patients were treated with UBE, and 32 were treated with PTED. The patients were followed up for at least one year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. x-ray examinations were performed one year after surgery to assess the stability of the lumbar spine. The mean ages in the UBE and PTED groups were 46.7 years and 48.0 years, respectively. Compared to the UBE group, the PTED group had better VAS scores for back pain at 1 and 7 days after surgery (3.06 ± 0.80 vs. 4.03 ± 0.81, P < 0.05; 2.81 ± 0.60 vs. 3.70 ± 0.79, P < 0.05). The UBE and PTED groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time after the first month (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the UBE group was similar to that in the PTED group (86.7% vs. 87.5%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Both UBE and PTED have favorable outcomes in patients with single-level LDH. However, PTED is superior to UBE in terms of short-term postoperative back pain relief and perioperative quality of life.

Modified lumbar foraminoplasty using a power-aided reciprocating burr for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy: A technical note and clinical report.

One of the main difficulties in a transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD), and simultaneously the most critical step, is performing an effective and safe foraminoplasty, which is especially difficult for beginners. To make it safer and faster for beginners to perform, we have used a specially designed power-aided reciprocating burr for TELD and reported the technical details. From Jan. 2019 to Nov. 2022, 432 patients with single-level, symptomatic L4/5 or L5/S1 disc herniation were treated with TELD using a novel power-aided reciprocating burr. The surgical procedure is described in detail. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed the following day and 3 months after the operation. The learning curves of surgeons with different seniority levels are displayed. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to measure low back pain, leg pain, and lumbar function. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. All patients underwent endoscopic surgery successfully. Among the 432 patients, radicular outer membrane damage was observed in 6 cases, and 1 case had hernia of the nerve tract. Except for this patient with aggravation of postoperative numbness, the postoperative neurological symptoms of all patients were significantly improved. The mean VAS scores for low back pain and leg pain and ODI scores were significantly decreased 6 w post-operatively and were maintained until 12 months post-operatively compared to preoperative scores (P < 0.05). All three doctors involved in the study had substantial experience in traditional open spinal surgery. The more operations all three surgeons completed, the more time spent on intervertebral foraminoplasty decreased (P < 0.05). Among them, doctors without experience in TELD surgery became proficient in this technique after accumulating experience in 13 cases. There was no significant difference in foraminoplasty time among these three surgeons during the same growing period (P > 0.05). Current clinical data demonstrated the safety and efficacy of modified TELD using a power-aided reciprocating burr for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and showed that this technique significantly reduces the learning curve for beginners when performing foraminoplasty.

Effect of Muscularity and Fatty Infiltration of Paraspinal Muscles on Outcome of Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Lumbar paraspinal muscles play an important role in maintaining global spinal alignment and are associated with lower back pain; however, only a few studies on the effect of the paraspinal muscles on the surgical outcome exist. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the association of preoperative muscularity and fatty infiltration (FI) of paraspinal muscles with the outcome of lumbar interbody fusion. Postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes were analyzed in 206 patients who underwent surgery for a degenerative lumbar disease. The preoperative diagnosis was spinal stenosis or low-grade spondylolisthesis, and the surgery performed was posterior lumbar interbody fusion or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Indications for surgery were a complaint of severe radiating pain that did not improve with conservative treatment and neurological symptoms accompanied by lower extremity motor weakness. Patients with fractures, infections, tumors, or a history of lumbar surgery were excluded from this study. Clinical outcome measures included functional status, measured using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back and leg pain. Other radiographic parameters included measures of spinal alignment, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, pelvic incidence, C7 sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch. Lumbar muscularity (LM) and FI were measured preoperatively using a lumbar magnetic resonance image (MRI). The high LM group showed more significant improvement in VAS score for lower back pain than the low LM group. In contrast, the VAS score for leg pain demonstrated no statistical significance. The high LM group showed more significant improvement in ODI postoperatively than the medium group. The severe FI group showed more significant improvement in ODI postoperatively, whereas the less severe FI group showed more significant improvement in the sagittal balance postoperatively. Patients with high LM and mild FI ratio observed on preoperative MRI demonstrated more favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes after lumbar interbody fusion. Therefore, preoperative paraspinal muscle condition should be considered when planning lumbar interbody fusion.

Stand-alone ALIF versus TLIF in patients with low back pain – A propensity-matched cohort study with two-year follow-up

IntroductionInstrumented lumbar fusion by either the anterior or transforaminal approach has different advantages and disadvantages. Few studies have compared PatientReported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) between stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SA-ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Research questionThis is a register-based dual-center study on patients with severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP) undergoing single-level SA-ALIF or TLIF. Comparing PROMs, including disability, quality of life, back- and leg-pain and patient satisfaction two years after SA-ALIF or TLIF, respectively. Material and methodsData were collected preoperatively and at one and two-year follow-up. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and quality of life (QoL) measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score. To reduce baseline differences between groups, propensity-score matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion. Results92 patients were matched, 46 S A-ALIF and 46 TLIF. They were comparable preoperatively, with no significant difference in demographic data or PROMs (P > 0.10). Both groups obtained statistically significant improvement in the ODI, QoL and VAS-score (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was observed (P = 0.14). No statistically significant differences in EQ-5D index scores (P = 0.25), VAS score for leg pain (P = 0.88) and back pain (P = 0.37) at two years follow-up. ConclusionSignificant improvements in ODI, VAS-scores for back and leg pain, and EQ-5D index score were registered after two-year follow-up with both SA-ALIF and TLIF. No significant differences in improvement.

Efficacy of Repeat Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Reoperation of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study.

To evaluate the efficacy of repeat percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) reoperation. This study included patients with LSS who relapsed following treatment with PELD therapy between March 2017 and March 2020. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were analyzed preoperatively, postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and at final follow-up. The modified MacNab criteria were used to assess clinical effects. All complications were recorded. At a mean follow-up of 3 years, 24 patients with LSS who underwent repeat PELD were identified. The patients' mean operative time was 122.3±29.2 min, blood loss was 12.5±5.3 mL, and mean hospital stay was 7.0±1.9 days. VAS leg-pain score improved from 6.1±1.0 to 2.0±1.2 (P<0.001), VAS back-pain score improved from 6.2±0.8 to 2.1±1.1 (P<0.001), and ODI improved from 68.9±6.0 to 20.9±5.6 (P <0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the good-to-excellent rate was 83.3%. Postoperative complications, including hematoma, nerve root injury, and dural injury, developed in four patients. Repeat PELD for reoperation in patients with LSS has a good clinical effect, and is recommended in routine clinical practice. Careful intraoperative manipulation is recommended to prevent complications.

General vs Local Anesthesia for Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Systematic review. It remains unknown whether general anesthesia (GA) or local ± epidural anesthesia (LA) results in superior outcomes with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). The present study sought to examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications with PELD. Systematic review and meta-analysis examining PELD performed under GA or LA was conducted. Patient-reported outcomes including Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg/back, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Complication, recurrent disc herniation, durotomy, and reoperation rates as well as surgical data were recorded. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining GA or LA. Sixty-eight studies consisting of 5269 patients (724GA, 4465 LA) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall complication rate was significantly higher in the GA group (9% vs 4%, P = .003). Durotomy rates, length of stay, recurrent disc herniation and reoperation rates were similar between groups. At the first follow-up timepoint, the LA group demonstrated significant improvements in VAS back and ODI scores (P < .05) while the GA group did not (P > .05). At the final follow-up (> 6months), the percent of patients achieving an excellent McNab score was significantly higher in the GA vs LA group (P < .001). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with LA may be associated with greater short-term improvement in VAS back pain and ODI scores. General anesthesia may be associated with more durable pain relief but a higher complication rate. Further systematic investigation is necessary to determine what short and long term benefits are associated with PELD performed under LA and GA.

Lumbar Canal Stenosis Decompression Using Bilateral Interlaminar Versus Classic Laminectomy Technique

Objective: The study compared the postoperative back pain VAS score in bilateral interlaminar and classic laminectomy techniques in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.&#x0D; Material and Methods: This randomized controlled experiment was carried out at Ayub Teaching Hospital's Neurosurgery Department. 30 patients were in the bilateral interlaminar (BIL) group (A) and 30 were in the traditional laminectomy group (B). The bilateral interlaminar decompression technique was carried out utilizing the operating microscope. Both groups employed facet joint undercutting to reduce the 61-facet joint excision. All patients had postoperative CT scans to assess how well the decompression went. Postoperative VAS score was stratified to age, gender, duration of complaints, and duration of the procedure.&#x0D; Results: In group A, the mean age of patients was 51.10 years while in group B, the mean age was 54.500 years. There was a male dominance of male patients in both groups. The baseline mean VAS score was 7.9 in group A and group B both. The duration of the procedure was 71.2 minutes in group A, and 104.7 minutes in group B. Mean postoperative VAS score was 5.4 in group A and 3.3 in group B. There existed a significant difference in mean postoperative VAS scores between groups concerning gender, the duration of complaints, and procedures.&#x0D; Conclusion: In patients with lumbar canal stenosis, bilateral interlaminar allows for safe and adequate spinal canal decompression.&#x0D; Keywords: Lumbar canal stenosis (LCS), Bilateral Interlaminar (BIL), Classic Laminectomy, Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

Radiological and clinical outcomes of midline lumbar fusion on sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters for degenerative lumbar diseases.

Improving the sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters after fusion surgery is important for improving clinical outcomes. The impact of midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) on sagittal lumbar-pelvic alignment for the management of degenerative lumbar diseases is still unknown. To analyze the effects of short-segment MIDLF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) on sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters. We retrospectively analyzed 63 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent single-segment MIDLF or MIS-TLIF. The imaging data of patients were collected before surgery and at the final follow-up. The radiological sagittal parameters included the lumbar lordosis (LL), lower LL, L4 slope (L4S), L5 slope (L5S), L5 incidence (L5I), L1 axis and S1 distance (LASD), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and PI-LL mismatch (PI-LL). Additionally, the clinical outcomes, including lower back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, were also analyzed. In both groups, LL and Lower LL significantly increased, while L5I and LASD significantly decreased at the final follow-up compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). In the MIDLF group, L4S significantly decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05), while the mean SS significantly increased and the PT significantly decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). In the MIS-TLIF group, SS slightly increased and the mean PT value decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation, but without a statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the PI-LL in both groups was significantly reduced compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters between the two groups prior to operation and at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). In addition, the change in sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters did not differ significantly, except for ΔLASD within the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean lower back and leg pain VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved three months after surgery and at the final follow-up. Though the mean ODI score in the MIDLF group three months after surgery was slightly higher than that in the MIS-TLIF group, there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final follow-up. Short-segment MIDLF and MIS-TLIF can equally improve sagittal lumbar parameters such as LL, Lower LL, L5I, and LASD in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. However, MIDLF had a larger impact on pelvic parameters than MIS-TLIF.

Pedicle Screw-Associated Violation of the Adjacent Unfused Facet Joint: Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates.

Retrospective review of a prospective randomized trial. To compare outcome scores and fusion rates in patients with and without pedicle screw-associated facet joint violation (FJV) after a single-level lumbar fusion. Clinical outcomes data and computed tomography (CT) imaging were reviewed for 157 patients participating in a multicenter prospective trial. Post-operative CT scans at 12-months follow-up were examined for fusion status and FJV. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg and low back pain. Chi-square test of independence was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures. Two-sample t-test was used to identify differences in mean patient outcome scores. Logistic regression models were performed to determine association between FJV and fusion rates. Of the 157 patients included, there were 18 (11.5%) with FJV (Group A) and 139 (88.5%) without FJV (Group B). Patients with FJV experienced less improvement in ODI (P = .004) and VAS back pain scores (P = .04) vs patients without FJV. There was no difference in mean VAS leg pain (P = .4997). The rate of fusion at 12-months for patients with FJV (27.8%) was lower compared to those without FJV (71.2%) (P = .0002). Patients with FJV were 76% less likely to have a successful fusion at 12-months. Pedicle screw-associated violation of the adjacent unfused facet joint during single-level lumbar fusion is associated with less improvement in back pain, back pain-associated disability, and a lower fusion rate at 1-year after surgery.

Advantages of Revision Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Patients who have Previously Undergone Posterior Spine Surgery.

Revision lumbar spine surgery via a posterior approach is more challenging than primary surgery because of epidural or perineural scar tissue. It demands more extensive removal of the posterior structures to confirm intact bony landmarks and could cause iatrogenic instability; therefore, fusion surgery is often added. However, adjacent segment disease after fusion surgery could be a problem, and further exposure of the posterior muscles could result in multiple operated back syndrome. To address these problems, we now perform transforaminal full-endoscopic spine surgery (TF-FES) as revision surgery in patients who have previously undergone posterior lumbar surgery. There have been several reports on the advantages of TF-FES, which include feasibility of local anesthesia, minimal invasiveness to posterior structures, and less scar tissue with fewer adhesions. In this study, we aim to assess the clinical outcomes of revision TF-FES and its advantages. We evaluated 48 consecutive patients with a history of posterior lumbar spine surgery who underwent revision TF-FES (at 60 levels) under local anesthesia. Intraoperative blood loss, operating time, and complication rate were evaluated. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using the modified Macnab criteria and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg pain, back pain, and leg numbness. We also compared the outcome of revision FES with that of primary FES. Mean operating time was 70.5 ± 14.4 (52-106) minutes. Blood loss was unmeasurable. The clinical outcomes were rated as excellent at 16 levels (26.7%), good at 28 (46.7%), fair at 10 (16.7%), and poor at 6 (10.0%). The mean preoperative VAS score was 6.0 ± 2.6 for back pain, 6.8 ± 2.4 for leg pain, and 6.3 ± 2.8 for leg numbness. At the final follow-up, the mean postoperative VAS scores for leg pain, back pain, and leg numbness were 4.3 ± 2.5, 3.8 ± 2.6, and 4.6 ± 3.2, respectively. VAS scores for all three parameters were significantly improved (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in operating time, intraoperative blood loss, or the complication rate between revision FES and primary FES. Clinical outcomes of revision TF-FES in patients with a history of posterior lumbar spine surgery were acceptable (excellent and good in 73.4% of cases). TF-FES can preserve the posterior structures and avoid scar tissue and adhesions. Therefore, TF-FES could be an effective procedure for patients who have previously undergone posterior lumbar spine surgery.

Condoliase therapy for lumbar disc herniation -2 year clinical outcome-

BackgroundCondoliase-induced chemonucleolysis is a less invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation (LDH); however, its long-term clinical outcomes remain unclear. We investigated 2-year clinical outcomes and assess radiographs after chemonucleolysis with condoliase. MethodsWe enrolled patients with LDH who received condoliase therapy, with a minimum follow-up period of two years. Sixty-seven patients (44 men, 23 women; mean age, 46.7 ± 18.0 years) were analyzed. Time-course changes in disc height, disc degeneration, and herniation size were assessed. For clinical outcomes assessment, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were obtained at baseline and the 3-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. We obtained a questionnaire from these patients at two years to assess satisfaction and recommendation. Condoliase therapy was considered to be effective in patients whose VAS score for leg pain improved by ≥ 50% at 2 years from baseline and who did not require surgery. ResultsCondoliase therapy was effective in 51 patients (76.1%). Eight patients (11.9%) required surgery due to ineffectiveness of the therapy. Condoliase therapy was ineffective in five out of six patients with a history of discectomy. The ODI and VAS scores for leg and back pain significantly improved from three months to two years. Of the patients, 80% satisfied with their outcomes, and 85% recommended this therapy. Progression of disc degeneration was observed in 57.1% of patients at three months; however, 30% recovered to baseline at two years. The mean disc height decreased at three months, but recovered slightly at one year and remained stable until two years. No recurrent disc herniation was observed. ConclusionsChemonucleolysis with condoliase was effective in 78% of patients with LDH for 2 years. Chemonucleolysis-induced disc degeneration was slightly recovered and maintained for two years post-injection. This treatment resulted in high patient satisfaction and recommendations.

A Comparison Between Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws And Traditional Pedicle Screws in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Five-Year Results.

A retrospective observational study. This study investigated the clinical and radiological results of using cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws versus traditional pedicle (TP) screws in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) during a five-year follow-up of patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Few studies have compared five-year follow-up outcomes between CBT screws and TP screws in TLIF. We reviewed outcome data of patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent TLIF procedures with CBT screws (131 patients) or TP screws (80 patients) between 2011 and 2015. Patient-reported clinical outcome data included Oswestry disability index scores and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain at baseline, six months, and one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. The radiographic fusion rate and prevalence of secondary surgery for adjacent segment disease were also measured. During the follow-up over five years, the CBT group had significantly lower VAS scores for back pain ( P <0.0001, respectively). At two years after surgery, the CBT group had significantly higher VAS scores for leg pain ( P =0.007). At five years postoperatively, no significant differences existed in the VAS score for leg pain or in the Oswestry disability index score between the two groups. Radiographic fusion rates (CBT vs. TP: 95.5% vs. 95.9%; P =0.881) and adverse events during the five years after surgery were not significantly different. At two years postoperatively, the prevalence of secondary surgery to treat adjacent segment disease was significantly different between the two groups (CBT vs . TP: 13.7% vs. 5.0%; P =0.044). Our results suggest that, during a five-year followup, CBT screws for TLIF were an effective treatment compared to TP screws in the setting of single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. However, when using CBT screws for TLIF, surgeons should consider the higher rate of secondary procedures to treat symptomatic adjacent segment disease.

Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)

Background ContextIn recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been more and more favored by spinal surgeons because of its advantages of low trauma, rapid recovery, high fusion rate and fewer complications. PurposeTo compare the clinical effects of ULIF with those of conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Study DesignProspective case control study. Patient SampleTwenty-seven patients treated by ULIF and thirty-three patients treated by PLIF. Outcome MeasuresThe preoperative baseline and surgical technique-related outcomes (mean operation time, blood loss during operation, postoperative drainage, and postoperative hospital stay) were compared between the two groups. The clinical status of the two groups before and after surgery were also compared: visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the legs and back, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The clinical laboratory indexes of the two groups before and after the operation were compared: C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor–α (TNF-α), as well as the incidence of complications, such as dural tear, nerve root injury and infection. MethodsAdult patients who underwent L3–S1 single level lumbar interbody fusion were included in the study. They were divided into a PLIF group and a ULIF group according to the type of surgery. This study comprised 60 cases: 27 cases in the ULIF group and thirty-three cases in the PLIF group. ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative baseline between the two groups. The ULIF group experienced less blood loss, postoperative drainage and a shorter postoperative hospital stay than the PLIF group; however the ULIF group required a longer operation time than the PLIF group (p<.05). CRP, ESR, CPK, IL-6, and TNF-α levels of the PLIF group were all significantly higher than those of the ULIF group 5 days after surgery (p<.05). The improvements in the VAS scores for back pain, VAS scores for leg pain and JOA score in the ULIF group were all significantly better than those in the PLIF group at 5 days after surgery (p<.05). There was no significant difference in fusion rate at 6 months between the 2 groups (p>.05). ConclusionsThis study showed that ULIF and PLIF were both effective surgical techniques for lumbar interbody fusion. However, ULIF caused less bleeding, reduced inflammatory reaction, less tissue damage and faster postoperative recovery compared with PLIF. Both long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to validate the clinical and radiological results of this surgery.