Visual Analog Scale Leg Pain Research Articles

Comparison of Three Common Intervertebral Disc Discectomies in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on Multiple Data.

Due to recent developments and the wide application of percutaneous transforaminal discectomy (PTED), we herein compare it with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and traditional open surgery (OD) through surgical indicators and postoperative outcomes to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive surgery PTED. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO2018: CRD42018094890). We searched four English and two Chinese databases from the date of their establishment to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies of PTED versus MED or PTED versus OD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation were retrieved. A total of 33 studies with 6467 cases were included. When comparing MED with PTED, the latter had less intraoperative blood loss, smaller incision, shorter postoperative bed times, shorter hospitalization times, better postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain, and postoperative dysfunction index (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI) and higher recurrence rates and revision rates. However, operation times, postoperative VAS leg scores and complications, and successful operation rates were similar in both groups. Comparison of PTED with OD revealed in the former less intraoperative blood loss and smaller incision, shorter postoperative bed times, shorter hospitalization times, shorter operation times, and higher recurrence rates and revision rates. Nonetheless, comprehensive postoperative VAS scores, VAS leg pain scores, VAS low back pain, ODI and incidence of complications, and successful operation rates were similar between the two groups. The therapeutic effect and safety of PTED, MED and OD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation were comparable. PTED had obvious advantages in that it is minimally invasive, with rapid recovery after surgery, but its recurrence rates and revision rates were higher than MED and OD. Therefore, it is not possible to blindly consider replacing MED and OD with PTED.

Clinical efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

To evaluate the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. From July 2017 to January 2019, 90 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, including 38 males and 52 females, aged from 43 to 75 years old with an average of(59.9±8.8) years old, and were treated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion(OLIF) combined with Wiltse unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Surgical decompression and fixation was performed in 50 cases of single segment, 32 cases of double segments and 8 cases of three segments. The distribution of responsible segments included 8 cases of L2-L3, 12 cases of L3-L4 and 30 cases of L4-L5 on single segment, 10 cases of L2-L4 and 22 cases of L3-L5 on double segments, and 8 cases of L2-L5 on three segments. The operation time, blood loss and occurrence of complications were recorded, Visual analogue scale(VAS), Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) and SF-36 scale were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Lumbar X-ray and MRI were taken at three days after operation, interverterbral space height, intervertebral foraminal height, interverterbral foraminal area, and spinal canal area were measured, and interbody fusion was evaluated according to CT at half a year after operation. All patients were followed up from 12 to 33 months, with an average of (20.2±6.6) months. Mean operation time was (103.3±35.9) min, and mean intraoperative blood loss was (70.4±17.8) ml. VAS of low back pain leg pain, and ODI decreased from 6.2±1.1, 6.1±0.9 and (59.9±4.2)% to 2.7±0.5, 2.5±0.5 and (31.3±8.8)%. SF-36 scale significantly increased from (37.2±3.1) to (54.9±6.1) at the six months postoperation(P<0.05). The intervertebral space height, intervertebral foraminal height, intervertebral foraminal area, and spinal canal area were significantly improved at 3 days after operation(P<0.05). Six months after operation, CT scan showed well fusion in 87 cases, but 3 cases with poor fusion, including 1 case of single segment, 2 cases of multi-segments. The total fusion rate was 96.7% (87/90), the single segment fusion rate was 98.0% (49/50), and the multi-segments fusion rate was 95.0%(38/40). The overall incidence of complications was 17.8%(16/90), including transient iliopsoas muscle weakness in 5 cases (5.6%), endplate fracture in 2 cases (2.2%), peritoneal injury in 1 case (1.1%), postoperative hematoma in 1 case (1.1%), adjacent segment disease in 1 case(1.1%), and fusion cage subsidence in 6 cases (6.7%). Three patients was followed up for recurrent nerve root pain and the symptoms were relieved after revision operation. All complications were relieved or disappeared in varying degrees during the follow-up period, and there were no complications such as cage displacement and screw fracture. OLIF combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach is effective in treating lumbar spinal stenosis with minimally invasive advantages such as less trauma and less complications. Under the premise of strictly grasping the indications, this method could also achieve satisfactory clinical results in multi-segments oprations.

Comparison of Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lateral Fixation in the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients with Osteopenia or Osteoporosis.

Nowadays, with the increasing proportion of osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, doctors are facing the choice of intraoperative internal fixation methods. The purpose of this study was to compare and assess the clinical results of posterior bilateral pedicle screw fixation and lateral fixation in the extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis. The retrospective review was performed on 67 degenerative lumbar diseases patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis who underwent XLIF in our hospital from January 2018 to July 2021. Patients in this study were classified into lateral screw (LS) group, lateral self-locking plate (LP) group, and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) group. The functional evaluation factors containing Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) of leg pain, and VAS of low back pain, radiological factors such as disc height (DH), lumbar lordotic (LL) angle, segmental lordotic (SL) angle, cage subsidence degree and interbody fusion degree were compared. Primary outcomes: no differences were observed with regards to the incidence of complications among LS, LP and BS group (P < 0.05). The JOA and leg pain VAS were significantly improved after operation (P < 0.05) and all groups demonstrated similar improvements in the leg pain VAS and JOA score (P > 0.05). When comparing VAS of leg pain and JOA scores, no differences were identified among LS, LP and BPS groups (P > 0.05). There are four thigh sensory complaint, one hip flexor weakness and one thigh pain occurred and no death was observed. There were significantly better DH, LL angle, SL angle, cage subsidence degree and interbody fusion degree in the BPS group than in LS and LP groups 1 year after surgery (P < 0.05). The DH loss ratio, LL angle loss ratio, SL angle loss ratio in the BPS group was significantly lower than in the LP and LS groups (P < 0.05). The 12-month SL angle improvement rate in the BPS group was significantly higher than in the LP and LS groups (20.20± 14.69, 0.73 ± 4.68, 6.20 ± 12.31, P < 0.05). the BPS patients had significantly worse intraoperative blood loss and operation time than LS and LP patients (P < 0.05). In lumbar diseases patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis, the bilateral pedicle screw fixation has better orthopedic effect than lateral internal fixation, and can better maintain the stability of the spine in the long-term follow-up, which is a better choice in XLIF surgery.

Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for L5-S1 calcified lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study.

BackgroundCalcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is considered to be a special type of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID), with safety and efficacy, has been proved to be a minimally invasive surgery for LDH. However, there are few studies on PEID in the treatment of CLDH at the L5-S1 level. This study aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of PEID for L5-S1 CLDH.MethodsFrom August 2016 to April 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 28 consecutive patients (17 males and 11 females) with L5-S1 CLDH treated with PEID at our institution. All the patients were monitored for more than 1 year postoperatively. The demographic characteristics, surgical results, and clinical outcomes estimated by the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria were collected.ResultsAll patients successfully underwent PEID. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 65.36 ± 5.26 min and 13.21 ± 4.35 ml, respectively. The VAS for leg pain and ODI scores improved remarkably from 7.54 ± 0.96 to 1.50 ± 0.51 (P < 0.05) and from 69.29 ± 9.91 to 17.43 ± 3.69 (P < 0.05) a year after operation, respectively. According to the modified MacNab criteria of the last follow-up, the excellent and good rates are 92.86%. Two of the patients had complications, one had nerve root injury and the other had postoperative dysesthesia.ConclusionsPEID achieved good clinical outcomes in the treatment of L5-S1 CLDH, and it was a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for L5-S1 CLDH.

Comparative Study of the Differences in Radiologic Results for Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy and Microscopic or Micro-endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy

Objective: Lumbar foraminal stenosis is a common pathology that causes back pain and radiculopathy. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (PELF) is a minimally invasive surgical procedure reported to be effective in the treatment of foraminal stenosis; however, no studies have been conducted that compare the on radiographic results of PELF and conventional techniques for the treatment of foraminal stenosis, such as microscopic foraminotomy and micro-endoscopic foraminotomy. This study aimed to report postoperative changes in the lumbar foraminal parameters on computed tomography (CT) after PELF and to compare the radiological efficacy of the PELF technique with that of the conventional techniques.Methods: Radiographic evaluation of the neuroforamen was based on CT scans taken preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively in the PELF and conventional groups. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for back pain, visual analog scale (VAS), and JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ) were evaluated preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively in the PELF group.Results: The PELF and conventional groups comprised 21 and 17 patients, respectively. In the PELF group, the JOA score, VAS of back pain, and JOABPEQ of low back pain showed significant improvement; however, VAS of leg pain and leg numbness and the other components of JOABPEQ showed no significant differences. There were significant increases in the foraminal area, superior foraminal width (SFW), and middle foraminal width (MFW). Additional radiological evaluation for patients who underwent microscopic or micro-endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy was almost equivalent.Conclusion: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy is a minimally invasive technique that is as effective as conventional techniques for the treatment of foraminal stenosis.

Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Intradiscal Condoliase Injection Therapy for Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Background and Objectives: Intradiscal injection of Condoliase (chondroitin sulfate ABC endolyase), a glycosaminoglycan-degrading enzyme, is employed as a minimally invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and represents a promising option between conservative treatment and surgical intervention. Since its 2018 approval in Japan, multiple single-site trails have highlighted its effectiveness, however, the effect of LDH types, and influences of patient age, sex, etc., on treatment success remains unclear. Moreover, data on teenagers and elderly patients has not been reported. In this retrospective multi-center study, we sought to classify prognostic factors for successful condoliase treatment for LDH and assess its effect on patients < 20 and ≥70 years old. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the records of 137 LDH patients treated through condoliase at four Japanese institutions and assessed its effectiveness among different age categories on alleviation of visual analog scale (VAS) of leg pain, low back pain and numbness, as well as ODI and JOA scores. Moreover, we divided them into either a “group-A” category if a ≥50% improvement in baseline leg pain VAS was observed or “group-N” if VAS leg pain improved <50%. Next, we assessed the differences in clinical and demographic distribution between group-A and group-N. Results: Fifty-five patients were classified as group-A (77.5%) and 16 patients were allocated to group-N (22.5%). A significant difference in Pfirrmann classification was found between both cohorts, with grade IV suggested to be most receptive. A posterior disc angle > 5° was also found to approach statical significance. In all age groups, average VAS scores showed improvement. However, 75% of adolescent patients showed deterioration in Pfirrmann classification following treatment. Conclusions: Intradiscal condoliase injection is an effective treatment for LDH, even in patients with large vertebral translation and posterior disc angles, regardless of age. However, since condoliase imposes a risk of progressing disc degeneration, its indication for younger patients remains controversial.

Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement Led to Lower Screw Loosening Rate than Fluoroscopy-Guided Technique in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for spine surgery has become popular in recent years. This study compares clinical, radiographic outcomes and the screw loosening rate between robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement in patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We retrospectively examined 108 patients with the degenerative lumbar disease who underwent TLIF. According to whether the robotic system was used, patients were assigned to either the robot-assisted (Ro TLIF, n = 29) or fluoroscopy-guided TLIF (FG TLIF, n = 79) group. Radiographic parameters and patient-reported outcomes, including leg and back pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were assessed. Loosening signs were noted in 48 out of 552 pedicle screws. The screw loosening rate was higher in the FG TLIF (10.2%) than Ro TLIF group (4.3%). A significant correlation was found between screw loosening and age, the number of level(s) fused, and the ratio of the average distance from the pedicle screw to the upper endplate to vertebral body height. VAS-leg, VAS-back, and ODI showed significant improvements in both groups postoperatively (all p < 0.05). These results indicated that robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in TLIF had a lower screw loosening rate and similar patient-reported outcomes compared with the fluoroscopy-guided technique.

120. The clinical and operative impact of lumbar epidural steroid injections prior to spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common finding in the adult population. Lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are often used in management of this condition, with conflicting evidence regarding their efficacy. Previous research has suggested a negative impact of ESIs on the operative times and postoperative outcomes when ESIs are administered preoperatively prior to spine surgery in this population. Our retrospective study was performed to gain greater insight into the impact of preoperative ESIs on postoperative outcomes following spine surgery in management of lumbar stenosis. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> Our objective is to determine how preoperative ESIs impact postoperative outcomes following spine surgery in management of lumbar stenosis. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Retrospective cohort involving patients who underwent surgical management of lumbar stenosis. Data for patients with preoperative ESI was compared to those without preoperative ESI administration. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> Patient data for this retrospective cohort was retrieved solely from a patient database of a medical institution in north Texas, US. Patients were included in the study if they underwent surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2016 and December 2020. The inclusion criteria required an active diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Patients who received an ESI within three months prior to the spine surgery were included in the "ESI" group, while those who did not receive a lumbar ESI within three months prior to the spine surgery were included in the "Non-ESI" group. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Primary outcome measures were ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) back, NDI (Neck Disability Index) back, VAS (Visual Analog Scale) leg pain, VAS back pain, PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) pain, PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS satisfaction, PROMIS physical function at time of spine surgery (baseline) and at three months after surgery. <h3>METHODS</h3> This study was conducted at a medical institution in north Texas, US, utilizing the institution's spine center database. The institutional review board approved the standardized protocol. This study included a retrospective cohort. All results were collated on a Microsoft Excel file as retrieved from a patient registry of a medical institution in north Texas based on exclusion and inclusion criteria above. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS software, with t-test and ANOVA used to determine significance. P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. <h3>RESULTS</h3> Patients receiving an ESI in the preoperative period had shorter operative times (ESI 157 minutes vs Non-ESI 187 minutes, p=.10) during spine surgery than did patients in the Non-ESI group. Both ESI and Non-ESI groups showed significant improvements in VAS leg, VAS back, ODI and PROMIS pain scores at three months after surgery, with the ESI group showing a significantly larger improvement compared to the Non-ESI group in PROMIS pain scores. <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> Regardless of preoperative ESI administration, this study demonstrated improvement in pain and disability scores in the postoperative period following surgical management of lumbar stenosis. Patients who received ESI in the preoperative course had shorter operative times and greater improvements in PROMIS pain scores in the postoperative course compared to those who did not receive ESI. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

P131. Long term effectiveness of full endoscopic versus open microdiscectomy for sciatica: a 24-month RCT

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Open microdiscectomy (OM) is the current standard procedure to treat sciatica caused by lumbar disk herniation. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is an alternative procedure which is performed under local anesthesia. Here we report the long-term results. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> To assess long-term effectiveness of PTED vs OM at 24 months. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> A pragmatic, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> A total of 613 were randomized to either PTED (n=304) or OM (n=309). <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> The primary outcome is self-reported leg pain measured by the 0-100 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a noninferiority margin of 5. Secondary outcomes include self-reported ODI, back pain, health-related quality of life and self-perceived recovery. <h3>METHODS</h3> A pragmatic, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial was conducted in which patients were randomized between PTED or OM in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is self-reported leg pain measured by the 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a noninferiority margin of 5. Secondary outcomes include self-reported ODI, back pain, health-related quality of life and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured the day following surgery, at 2, 4, and 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9,12 and 24 months. <h3>RESULTS</h3> At 24 months, 92% of the patients had followup data available. At 24 months, the adjusted between group difference of the VAS leg pain was 7.3 in favor of PTED (17.0 ± 22.4 vs 24.3 ± 26.5;). There was no difference in back pain at 24 months between both groups. All other secondary patient-reported outcomes showed small but statistically more favorable results for the PTED-group. Complications rates and rate of recurrent disc surgery appear similar between both groups. <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> At long-term, PTED remains noninferior to OM in the treatment of sciatica at 24 months of followup and clinical outcomes appear to be more favorable for PTED, albeit not exceeding established MCIDs. Therefore, based on these study results, implementation of PTED as a treatment option for sciatica is warranted. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery.MethodsElectronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review.ResultsAfter the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores.ConclusionsUBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Change in sagittal alignment after decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without significant deformity: a prospective cohort study.

The authors' objective was to investigate whether sagittal balance improves in patients with spinal stenosis after decompression alone. This prospective longitudinal cohort study compared preoperative and 6-month postoperative 36-inch full-length radiographs in patients aged older than 60 years. Patients underwent decompression alone for central lumbar spinal stenosis with either a minimally invasive bilateral laminotomy for central decompression, unilateral laminectomy as an over-the-top procedure for bilateral decompression, or traditional wide laminectomy with removal of the spinous processes on both sides. The following radiographic parameters were measured: sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), PI-LL mismatch, coronal Cobb angle, and sacral slope (SS). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected, including scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and EQ-5D. Forty-five patients (24 males) with a mean ± SD age of 71.8 ± 5.6 years were included. Sagittal balance showed statistically significant improvement, with the mean SVA decreasing from 52.3 mm preoperatively to 33.9 mm postoperatively (p = 0.0001). The authors found an increase in LL, from mean -41.5° preoperatively to -43.9° postoperatively, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.055). A statistically significant decrease in PI-LL mismatch from mean 8.4° preoperatively to 5.8° postoperatively was found (p = 0.002). All PROM scores showed significant improvement after spinal decompression surgery. The correlations between SVA and all PROMs were statistically significant at both preoperative and postoperative time points, although most correlations were weak except for those between preoperative SVA and ODI (r = 0.55) and between SVA and VAS for leg pain (r = 0.58). Sagittal balance and PROMs show improvement at short-term follow-up evaluations in patients who have undergone decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ObjectiveAlthough full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up. ResultsFour retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo-LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669–35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941–41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found. ConclusionRelative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.

Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis Classification That Guides Surgical Treatment.

There are numerous radiological and anatomical studies on lumbar foramina in the literature, but there are no distinctive studies about the relationship between treatment and the type of foraminal stenosis. This study was conducted to better evaluate foraminal stenosis and to plan treatment accordingly. Foraminal stenosis was divided into 2 groups: stable and unstable stenosis. Both groups were also divided into 4 subgroups in relation to the cause and type of compression and based on the structure of the intervertebral disc. The visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were investigated before and after surgery. A total of 115 patients (59 women and 56 men) underwent surgery for lumbar foraminal stenosis. The mean patient age was 56.1 years (range 17-80 years). The mean follow-up was 29 months (range 24-39 months). There were 36 patients (32%) with stable foraminal stenosis and 79 patients (68%) with unstable foraminal stenosis. The majority of the patients were identified as having unstable type 1 foraminal stenosis (45 of 115). The VAS-LP and ODI scores for each group decreased gradually during the follow-up periods and showed significant decrease during the last follow-up (P < 0.001). Interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the classification of foraminal stenosis was found to be nearly perfect. No patients experienced postoperative radiculopathy complication. Only 2 patients experienced superficial operation site infection and 1 showed deep wound infection. The patient who had a deep wound infection needed to repeat surgery for the infection. We introduced a novel classification system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. We aimed to guide appropriate treatment modality depending on the determined classification. This classification helps to determine the optimal treatment. In the light of our findings, the patients who were operated according to our classification experienced satisfactory clinical outcomes and low complication rates.

The Effect of State-Level Prescription Opioid Legislation on Patient Outcomes After Lumbar Tubular Microdecompression.

In the United States, a statewide legislation titled the Strengthen Opioid Misuse Prevention (STOP) Act was enacted in 2017 to limit prescription opioid use and reduce dependence. The impact of state legislation curbing opioid prescription on outcomes after spine surgery is unknown. Case series. Data from consecutive patients undergoing lumbar tubular microdecompression for symptomatic lumbar spine stenosis from June 2016 to June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Cases between June 2016 and December 2017 represent the group before the STOP act (pre-STOP), while cases between January 2018 and June 2019 represent the group after legislation enactment (post-STOP). Preoperative and postoperative patient functional scores including the EuroQol-Five Dimensions Index, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were compared between both groups. The meaningful clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for each score and was compared between both groups as well. A total of 147 patients met inclusion criteria, with 86 in the pre-STOP group and 61 in the post-STOP group. Analysis of postoperative scores demonstrated statistically lower VAS leg pain score averages in the post-STOP group (P < 0.05). Higher trends in achieving MCID among the post-STOP group were observed; however, the differences between both groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05 for all). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in rates of unplanned pain-related clinic visits and emergency department (ED) visits, as well as no differences in the number of pain-related calls within 90 days after surgery between both groups. The enactment of state legislation to curb the prescribing of opioids for postoperative pain did not negatively affect the rate of achieving clinically meaningful outcomes among patients undergoing lumbar tubular microdecompression for spinal stenosis. Additionally, decreasing the amount of opioids prescribed for postoperative pain does not increase the number of unplanned clinic or ED visits due to pain within 90 days after surgery.

No correlation identified between the proportional size of a prolapsed intravertebral disc with disability or leg pain.

The aim of the study was to determine if there was a direct correlation between the pain and disability experienced by patients and size of their disc prolapse, measured by the disc's cross-sectional area on T2 axial MRI scans. Patients were asked to prospectively complete visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores on the day of their MRI scan. All patients with primary disc herniation were included. Exclusion criteria included recurrent disc herniation, cauda equina syndrome, or any other associated spinal pathology. T2 weighted MRI scans were reviewed on picture archiving and communications software. The T2 axial image showing the disc protrusion with the largest cross sectional area was used for measurements. The area of the disc and canal were measured at this level. The size of the disc was measured as a percentage of the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal on the chosen image. The VAS leg pain and ODI scores were each correlated with the size of the disc using the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Intraobserver reliability for MRI measurement was assessed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed if the position of the disc prolapse (central, lateral recess, or foraminal) altered the symptoms described by the patient. The VAS and ODI scores from central and lateral recess disc prolapses were compared. A total of 56 patients (mean age 41.1 years (22.8 to 70.3)) were included. A high degree of intraobserver reliability was observed for MRI measurement: single measure ICC was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.97 to 0.99 (p < 0.001)). The PCC comparing VAS leg scores with canal occupancy for herniated disc was 0.056. The PCC comparing ODI for herniated disc was 0.070. We found 13 disc prolapses centrally and 43 lateral recess prolapses. There were no foraminal prolapses in this group. The position of the prolapse was not found to be related to the mean VAS score or ODI experienced by the patients (VAS, p = 0.251; ODI, p = 0.093). The results of the statistical analysis show that there is no direct correlation between the size or position of the disc prolapse and a patient's symptoms. The symptoms experienced by patients should be the primary concern in deciding to perform discectomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J2022;104-B(6):715-720.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

BackgroundEndoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).MethodsTwenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation.ResultsNo differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 ± 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 ± 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab’s criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 ± 6.39% and 93.54 ± 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Can the Full-Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in Day Surgery Mode Achieve Better Outcomes Following Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol? A Retrospective Comparative Study.

BackgroundFull-percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (F-PELD) is a popular operation for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Some studies have reported that F-PELD in day surgery mode produced favorable outcomes for LDH. At the same time, minimally invasive spinal surgery following enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) presents a rising trend in recent years, but few studies reported whether F-PELD will produce better outcomes in the day surgery (DS) mode combined with ERAS.ObjectiveTo analyze whether F-PELD in day surgery mode following ERAS can produce better clinical outcomes than in traditional surgery mode.MethodsThe patients who underwent F-PELD between January 2019 and October 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, and the patients who met the inclusive criteria were followed up. The patients were divided into day surgery (DS) group (n = 152) that combined with ERAS and traditional surgery (TS) group (n = 123) without ERAS. The length of hospital stays (LOS), visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of two groups were compared before surgery, immediately after surgery, one month after surgery, and one year after surgery.ResultsA total of 298 patients who underwent F-PELD were reviewed. 290 patients were included in the study and followed up, and 275 patients who had completed the follow-up were available for analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, preoperative VAS, and ODI. There were significant statistical differences in the VAS and ODI immediately after surgery (VAS for back pain: DS group 1.4 ± 1.1, TS group 2.0 ± 1.2, p < 0.001; VAS for leg pain: DS group 0.8 ± 0.8, TS group 1.1 ± 1.1, p = 0.010; ODI: DS group 5.8 ± 4.3, TS group 7.6 ± 7.4, p = 0.010) and one month after surgery (VAS for back pain: DS group 0.8 ± 0.9, TS group 1.1 ± 1.0, p = 0.035; ODI: DS group 3.2 ± 3.5, TS group 4.5 ± 6.5, p = 0.036). At one year after surgery, the VAS (back pain: DS group 0.3 ± 0.6, TS group 0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.798; leg pain: DS group 0.2 ± 0.4, TS group 0.1 ± 0.4, p = 0.485) and ODI (DS group 0.8 ± 1.2, TS group 0.7 ± 1.7, p = 0.729) were further improved, but no statistically significant difference was observed between two groups. LOS of DS group (1.38 ± 0.49 days) was significantly shorter than the TS group (5.83 ± 2.24 days, p < 0.001), and some postoperative complications occurred in the TS group, including throat discomfort (n = 5, 4.1%), discomfort after catheterization (n = 7, 5.7%), abdominal distention (n = 3, 2.4%), and nausea (n = 5, 4.1%). None of the above complications resulted in serious consequences.ConclusionThe F-PELD in day surgery mode following ERAS produced a better short-term clinical effect and reduced the LOS, which is worthy of promotion.

Does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) influence functional outcomes and spinopelvic parameters in isthmic spondylolisthesis?

PurposeWe assessed the efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.MethodsWe included 24 symptomatic patients who underwent MIS-TLIF between December 2017 and December 2020. Patients were followed up clinically by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and VAS for leg pain, as well as radiological radiographs after 6 weeks, 6 months, and at final follow-up (at least 12 months). Measured parameters included C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), Meyerding slip grades, lumbar lordosis (LL), L1–L4 angle, L4–S1 angle, and segmental lordosis (SL) of the affected segment. The mismatch between the PI and LL was also measured.ResultsVAS for back, VAS for leg pain, and ODI significantly improved postoperatively (all p < 0.001). We observed significantly decreased mean values of PT and slip percentage and increased mean values of SS and LL (all p < 0.05). We observed a significant reduction in L1–L4 lordosis and a significant increase in L4–S1 lordosis. The final PT, SS, and LL (total and L1–L4) were significantly higher in group III patients (n = 15) than the values of group II patients (n = 9). None of the patients became unbalanced postoperative, and all patients had a normal matching between the PI and the LL postoperatively.ConclusionsMIS-TLIF is a safe procedure for managing low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis with significant improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes. It can correct and maintain a proper spinopelvic alignment.

Application of cortical bone trajectory screw and sacral alar screw internal fixation for surgical treatment of lumbar adjacent segment degeneration

Objective: To explore the application of cortical bone trajectory screw (CBTS) and sacral alar screw (SAS) internal fixation in the treatment of lumbar adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and evaluate its clinical effect. Methods: Data of 24 patients who were diagnosed with ASD and treated by CBTS or SAS in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. There were 14 males and 10 females with a mean age of (67.9±8.2) years. The patients were followed-up for (2.6±0.4) years. Perioperative parameters including operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative time on the ground were counted. All patients were followed-up for at least 2 years. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were compared between pre-operation and at the last follow-up. The internal fixation-related complications, pseudarthrosis and adjacent re-degeneration were evaluated in the follow-up. Results: There were 14 proximal ASD patients, 8 distal ASD patients, 1 both ends ASD patient and 1 ASD patient in between the fusion surgeries. Bone mineral density (BMD) T score of the adjacent vertebrae was -1.98±0.91 on average. The ASD patients were re-operated with CBTS and SAS internal fixation technique. A small incision was made in the revision surgery and the original fixation was not completely cut open and removed. The mean operation time was (125±36) min, mean blood loss was (85±33) ml. The postoperative ambulation time was (3.1±1.9) days, and the hospitalization time was (9.0±2.6) days. Before the operation, the average VAS (back pain) score was 5.2±1.0, the average of VAS (leg pain) score was 6.8±1.9 and ODI was 56.6%±12.8%. VAS score was reduced to 1.4±0.6 (waist pain) and 0.9±0.4 (leg pain). ODI was improved to 13.8%±6.3%. All the difference between preoperative and the last follow-up was statically significant (all P<0.01). No internal fixation failure, pseudarthrosis and adjacent re-degeneration were observed in the final follow-up. Conclusion: The application of CBTS and SAS internal fixation techniques in the surgical treatment of lumbar ASD has the advantages of less trauma, faster postoperative recovery, reliable internal fixation, and fewer complications, especially in patients with low bone mineral density.

Clinical Evaluation of Paraspinal Mini-Tubular Lumbar Decompression and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Grade I with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Cohort Study.

ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical outcome data and difference in efficacy between paraspinal mini-tubular lumbar decompression (PMTD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis grade I with lumbar spinal stenosis (DLS-I-LSS).MethodsPatients with DLS-I-LSS, who underwent PMTD or MIS TLIF from September 2017 to March 2020, were included retrospectively. The follow-up period was 24 months after surgery. Outcome measurements included the Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) low back pain score, VAS leg pain score, surgical data, and adverse events.ResultsA total of 104 patients with DLS-I-LSS were included in this study. The average improvement in ODI at 12 months (2.0%, 95% CI, −5.7% to 1.8%; p = 0.30) and 24 months (1.7%, 95% CI, −2.7% to 6.1%; p = 0.45) after surgery between the two groups were not statistically significant. The improvement in VAS low back pain score after 24 months and improvement in VAS leg pain score were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with the PMTD group, the MIS TLIF group had more estimated blood loss and longer hospital stays. The cumulative reoperation rates were 5.66% and 1.96% in the MIS TLIF and PMTD groups, respectively (p = 0.68). The results of multivariate analysis showed that BMI, diabetes, and baseline ODI score were the main factors influencing the improvement in ODI in patients with DLS-I-LSS after minimally invasive surgery, accounting for 50.5% of the total variance.ConclusionsThe clinical effectiveness of PMTD was non-inferior to that of MIS TLIF for DLS-I-LSS; however, there was a reduced duration of hospital stay, operation time, blood loss, and hospitalization costs in the PMTD group. BMI, presence or absence of diabetes and baseline ODI score were influencing factors for the improvement of ODI (Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000040025).