Open Spinal Surgery Research Articles

Complications and limitations of tubular retractor system in minimally invasive spine surgery: A review

The aim of a minimally invasive spine surgery is to decrease the collateral damage to the surrounding soft tissue, while performing the same task as that of a conventional open spine surgery. With widening of applications of the tubular retractor system, complications are prone to occur while performing surgery using tubular retractors. The aim of this review was to assess the spectrum of complications that are associated with tubular access spine surgery. A systematic review in English language literature on PubMed for clinical outcomes or complications in minimally invasive spine surgery using tubular retractors was carried out. A total of 11 articles were filtered from 2010 to 2018. Articles that were excluded were those with focus on open spine surgery, surgeries without using tubular retractors, Destandau technique, and endoscopic spine surgeries. The studies were divided into discectomy, decompressions, and fusions. Overall complications that were observed in the review were incidental durotomy, neurodeficits, infection, instability, reherniation, implant malposition, pulmonary embolism, hematoma, and urinary retention. The manifold advantages that are offered by the tubular retractor system include decreased iatrogenic tissue damage, decreased probability of surgical wound infections, decreased chances of instability, and rapid ambulation of the patients, providing an impetus to the number of day care procedures being performed for spine conditions. The complication profile in this review is comparable to the open spine surgeries except the risk of higher radiation hazard in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery but more high-quality randomized studies are required.

Navigating the learning curve of spinal endoscopy as an established traditionally trained spine surgeon.

Traditionally trained spine surgeons may want to transition from open spinal surgeries to endoscopic decompressions. The aspiring endoscopic spine surgeon may have to overcome multiple hurdles to master a learning curve without readily available training. Replacing traditional time-proven open spinal surgeries with endoscopic decompression may put the surgeons' reputation at risk and have an additional negative impact on his or her practice due to reduced revenue. The authors report on the utility of the mentor- and proctorship concepts to facilitate the transition from traditional open to endoscopic outpatient spine surgeries. The study population (learning curve groups) was provided by two traditionally trained "apprentice" surgeons who have been in practice for 12 and 28 years, respectively. They trained with the remaining two authors under mentorship and proctorship arrangements. A VAS and Macnab outcomes analysis was performed by one surgeon laminectomy versus endoscopy in relationship to the case log representative of the initial learning curve. The second surgeon performed a postoperative narcotic utilization analysis as a representative way of favorable clinical outcomes in relation to his increasing case log with spinal endoscopy. The learning curve study by the first author (NA Ransom-under the proctorship program) consisted of 40 patients with 20 patients each divided into the traditional laminectomy control group and 20 patients in the endoscopic group. There were 22 females and 18 males with an average age of 57.38 years and a mean follow-up of 38.58 months. The preoperative VAS for patients in both groups was 7.95 compared to the postoperative VAS at final follow-up of 4.01 with a statistically significant postoperative VAS reduction (P<0.001) but without any significant difference between open laminectomy control- and endoscopic decompression groups. The endoscopic learning curve group outcomes improved significantly after 15 cases (P<0.048). The second author (S Gollogly-under mentorship program) performed a similar review of his surgical cases log and noted a significant reduction of postoperative narcotic utilization as a result of improved outcomes after an initial learning curve of 15 cases. Clinical outcomes for both authors showed improved Macnab outcomes in the majority of patients (NA Ransom =65%; S Gollogly =57%) with a slightly higher success rate in the laminectomy group (70%) versus the endoscopy group (65%) at a statistical significant level (P=0.036). The mentorship and proctorship approach is useful in helping traditionally trained spine surgeons to integrate spinal endoscopy into their well-established spine practices. Under the close guidance of an endoscopic master spine surgeon, the endoscopic learning curve may be comprehended by the experienced traditionally trained spine surgeon in approximately 15 lumbar decompression cases. During this initial 15-case learning curve, clinical outcomes with endoscopy may be slightly inferior to open laminectomy but may ultimately improve to equivalent levels.

Surgical outcome of workman’s comp patients undergoing endoscopic foraminal decompression for lumbar herniated disc

Worker's compensation (WC) patients undergoing spine surgery typically experience delayed return to work (RTW) compared with non-WC patients, especially those approved for surgery undergoing traditional open spine surgery. The purpose of this study was to describe the observe RTW rates in WC patients after minimally invasive "selective endoscopic discectomy" (SED™) for a lumbar herniated disc. Clinical outcomes using the modified Macnab criteria and RTW data were analyzed in 118 WC patients following the outpatient SED™ procedure in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) using only local anesthesia with or without sedation. This endoscopic transforaminal decompression was trademarked by Anthony Yeung as SED. Single-level SED™ was performed in 62 patients, a two-level in 48 patients, a three-level decompression in 6, and a four-level decompression in another two patients, respectively. Patient selection was augmented by diagnostic and therapeutic injections performed preoperatively to determine how many levels of spine segments required surgical intervention. At the two-year follow-up, Excellent Macnab outcome in 36 patients, Good in 53, Fair in another 21, and Poor in the remaining eight patients, respectively. Of the 118 WC patients, 89 (75.42%) were released back to their original job within in 6 weeks from the index operation. The average time to work release was 4.2 months. Twenty-one patients who had previous spine surgery were working. Twenty-nine of the 118 study patients (24.58%) were unable to return to their original job. In the hands of a well-trained endoscopic spine surgeon, RTW rates with SED™ are higher than with traditional open translaminar surgery. Therefore, endoscopic surgery should be considered for WC patients and further be validated as a cost-effective alternative to open spine surgery.

Heamocoagulase Agkistrodon on Hemostatic Effectivity on Posterior Lumbar Operation

Objective: Perioperative bleeding volume of posterior spinal surgery is relatively large. This study was aimed to evaluate the hemostatic effect of Hemocoagulase agkistrodon for injection on open lumbar spine surgery. Methods: In this study, a prospective, blinded, randomized, and controlled clinical trial was used to observe the hemostatic effect of 2U intravenous injection of Hemocoagulase agkistrodon 15 minutes before surgery on the posterior lumbar open surgery. A total of 60 cases were included in this experimental study, 30 cases in the study group (2U agkistrodon hemagglutinin for intravenous injection 15 minutes before surgery) and 30 cases in the control group (Inject normal saline 15 minutes before surgery). We use SAS software to simulate and generate random codes. The third-party blinding method is adopted, that is, a specialized nurse is assigned to allocate study drugs in the order of random codes and intravenously according to the plan. We statistically analyzed the bleeding volume and postoperative drainage volume of posterior lumbar spine surgery, and the changes of coagulation indexes in the two groups. Results: All the selected patients successfully completed the operation, their wounds healed and were discharged from the hospital, and no complications such as infection and thrombosis occurred during the hospitalization. The two groups of patients’ coagulation function indicators include prothrombin time (PT), thrombin time (TT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), fibrinogen quantification (FIB), and D2 polymer. The difference was not statistically significant. However, comparing the intraoperative blood loss, 24h postoperative drainage, and postoperative total drainage between the two groups, the experimental group was better than the control group. Conclusion: Intravenous injection of Agkistrodon hemagglutinin 2U 15 minutes before surgery can have a satisfactory hemostatic effect on the posterior lumbar spine surgical incision. It can not only significantly reduce the amount of bleeding from surgical incisions, but also has no significant effect on the body's coagulation function. It is a safe and effective hemostatic drug.

Generation Change of Practice in Spinal Surgery: Can Endoscopic Spine Surgery Expand its Indications to Fill in the Role of Conventional Open Spine Surgery in Most of Degenerative Spinal Diseases and Disc Herniations: A Study of 616 Spinal Cases 3 Years.

A paucity of literature on the effect of spinal endoscopic surgery replacing a large percentage of open and microscopic minimally invasive surgery on outcomes in patients. Evaluation of the effect of endoscopic practice expansion in degenerative spinal conditions and disc herniations on patients' outcome as we shifted from first-generation endoscopic discectomy to second-generation decompression and finally third generation of endoscopic spinal fusion practice. Retrospective cohort study on surgical treatment of degenerative spinal conditions for 616 spinal cases. Basic demographics, preoperative, postoperative 1 week, 6 months, and final follow-up of patients' clinical outcomes in terms of pain score, Oswestry disability index, and MacNab's criteria for pain score were evaluated. 75%, 91%, and 97% of the surgeries with complications rate of 8.2%, 9%, and 3.4% were found in Generation 1, 2, and 3 of endoscopic surgery, respectively. Compared to preoperative scores, each generation VAS and ODI scores all statistically significantly improved. In the final follow-up, compared to preoperative state, the mean VAS improvement was 4.75 ± 1.7, 5.49 ± 1.66, and 5.37 ± 1.70, mean ODI improvement was 45.99 ± 11.8, 48.93 ± 11.2, and 48.43 ± 11.41, and MacNab's criteria showed a trend of upward improvement of 87.3%, 96.0%, and 98.7% cases, which showed good-to-excellent outcome, in Generation 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Generation change of increasing percentage of endoscopic surgeries and expansion of endoscopic spinal indications over open surgeries in degenerative spinal conditions and disc herniations are possible as a surgeon gets more experience with endoscopic spine surgery producing a good clinical outcome.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Pressure Injuries in Surgical Spinal Patients: A Retrospective Study.

The purpose of this study was to measure the incidence and identify risk factors of pressure injury development during the perioperative period in patients undergoing spinal surgery requiring intraoperative positioning in the prone position. Review of medical records. The sample comprised 3834 patients; 52.2% (n = 2006) were male and 65.5% (n = 2516) were older than 60 years. Most patients underwent surgery of the lumbosacral spinal segments (43.4%, n = 1667) followed by cervical (32.3%, n = 1241) and thoracic spinal segments (24.2%, n = 932). The study setting was the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Jiang XI Province in southeastern China. We reviewed charts of patients who underwent spinal surgery requiring intraoperative positioning in the prone position from November 2013 to July 2016. Demographic data, Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk cumulative score (measured before preoperative transport), body mass index (BMI), duration of surgery, preoperative time (time between preoperative transport from the inpatient unit to when the operation began), postoperative time (time between when the operation was over and postoperative transport to the inpatient unit), and development of any pressure injury were collected using a standardized form. Factors associated with an increased or decreased likelihood of pressure injury were initially evaluated with χ and independent t tests. Logistic regression was then used to identify potential risk factors for perioperative pressure injury in patients undergoing open spinal surgery requiring placement in the supine position during surgery. One hundred eighty-four of 3840 patients (4.7%) developed pressure injuries. Multivariate analysis indicated that factors associated with intraoperative pressure injury development were older than 60 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-2.17), BMI under 18 kg/m (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 4.05-5.21), cumulative Braden Scale score 13 or less (OR = 6.59, CI = 2.23-3.98), prolonged preoperative time (OR = 5.99, 95% CI = 3.21-6.12), and prolonged postoperative time (OR = 14.23, 95% CI = 10.23-21.19). Based on these findings we recommend extending preventive interventions for pressure injury to incorporate the time from preoperative transport to the surgical suite to inpatient care unit following surgery.

The Use of Vertiflex® Interspinous Spacer Device in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Concurrent Medical Comorbidities.

The use of the Vertiflex® interspinous spacer is a recent minimal invasive procedure useful in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). It is used mostly by interventional pain physicians who can also perform the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD procedure). Previously when a patient had clinical symptomatic neurogenic claudication (NC) and radiologic findings of lumbar stenosis and had failed conservative treatment, the options were decompressive laminectomy, laminectomy with pedicle fixation at one or more levels or laminotomy combined with interlaminar stabilization (Coflex® implant). These procedures were performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. However, the majority of patients with LSS are elderly and have multiple comorbidities that can make open spinal surgery, even when limited to one level, an anesthesia risk as well as vulnerable to the risk associated with hospitalization and recovery after spine surgery. The minimally invasive approaches to interspinous stabilization make it possible to treat localized symptomatic stenosis in a broader group of patients that do not want or cannot, have general anesthesia or extensive lumbar surgery, especially in the prone position. This article examines the use of the Vertiflex® implant in an elderly population with significant comorbidities that underwent successful outpatient implantation at one or two levels. In addition, it serves to familiarize spine surgeons about the possibility of using more minimal approaches to treat LSS.

The use of minimally invasive surgery in spine trauma: a review of concepts.

Traumatic injuries to the spine can be common in the setting of blunt trauma and delayed diagnosis can have a deleterious effect on patients' health. The goals of treatment in managing spine trauma are prevention of neurological injury, providing stability to the spine, and correcting post-traumatic deformity. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) techniques are an alternative to open spine surgery for treatment of spine fractures. MISS is also a viable treatment in the setting of damage control orthopedics, when patients with multiple traumatic injuries may be unable to tolerate a traditional open approach. MISS techniques have been used in the treatment of unstable fractures with or without spinal cord injury, flexion and extension-distraction injuries, and unstable sacral fractures. Traditional open surgeries have been associated with increased blood loss, longer operative times, and a higher risk for surgical site infection (SSI). MISS techniques have the potential to reduce open approach-associated morbidity, and improve postoperative care and rehabilitation. MISS techniques for spine trauma are an indispensable option in the treatment armamentarium of spine surgeons.

New Strategy for Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Surgery to Treat Infectious Spondylodiscitis in the Thoracolumbar Spine

Background: Eradicating infection, protecting neurologic function, and maintaining structural alignment are the 3 objectives of treatment for infectious spondylodiscitis. For some patients, surgery may be necessary to achieve these goals; however, open surgeries are associated with high morbidity and mortality in elderly patients and those with multiple comorbidities. Endoscopic surgery provides a minimally invasive surgical option for obtaining a culture sample to aid identification of pathogens, while also providing a route for adequate decompression and drainage. The clinical results of this study were analyzed. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of spinal endoscopic surgery, the basic characteristics of patients analyzed and their inflammatory markers, pain levels, and local kyphotic angles were recorded before surgery and at regular intervals after surgery. The patients’ cultured pathogens and previous antibiotic treatments were also recorded and analyzed. Study Design: Retrospective observational study (institutional review board: CMUH 105-REC2-101). Setting: Inpatient surgery center. Methods: From October 2006 to March 2017, of 508 patients who received spinal endoscopic surgery, 60 with infectious spondylodiscitis were treated using this new strategy. All 60 patients underwent plain film radiography and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the affected region to obtain evidence of infectious spondylodiscitis. The role of a computed tomographyguided biopsy and some indications for open surgery were replaced with endoscopic surgery. Results: All the patients reported rapid pain relief after endoscopic surgery and antibiotic treatment. No significant changes in sagittal alignment were observed in final follow-up radiography images. Causative pathogens were identified in 34 patients (culture rate: 77.27%) without previous antibiotic treatment. The patients’ erythrocyte sedimentation rates and C-reactive protein levels had decreased significantly 3 months after endoscopic surgery. Two patients (3.3%) experienced infection relapse following initial endoscopic surgery; both of them were efficiently resolved through a second round of endoscopic surgery. No surgeryrelated complications were observed and no open spinal surgery was required during the follow-up period. Limitations: This was a retrospective study; bias was unavoidable because of the singlecenter nature of the study design. Conclusions: Regarding the culture rate, recurrence rate, kyphotic change, and surgeryrelated complications, this new strategy for endoscopic surgery is safe and effective for treating infectious spondylodiscitis in the thoracic or lumbar spine and may be considered a new trend in treating diseases of this type. Key words: Spine, endoscopic, discectomy, spondylodiscitis, minimally invasive surgery

Pediatric spinal cord biopsy: A case series from a high-volume referral center

Pediatric patients presenting with intramedullary spinal cord lesions often require specific diagnoses to guide their treatment plans. Though results from magnetic resonance imaging and lumbar puncture may narrow the differential diagnosis, these tests cannot always provide a definitive diagnosis. In such cases, spinal cord biopsy may be undertaken to provide a specific histopathologic diagnosis for guiding treatment. Data from the adult population show 24% of spinal cord biopsies can be nondiagnostic and the procedure may carry a 21% complication rate. Therefore, spinal cord biopsy may portend a similar high risk-to-benefit ratio in the pediatric population. Here, we review spinal cord biopsy cases scheduled for diagnosis, and not debulking, at a high volume pediatric referral center during a seventeen-year period. We report our experience with five patients who met our inclusion criteria. Due to the rarity of the procedure, statistically significant factors associated with improved diagnostic yield or peri-operative complication could not be identified. A definitive diagnosis which guided the post-operative treatment plan was obtained in four of our five patients. None of our patients developed post-operative motor deficits. However, these patients were susceptible to the same risks of open spine surgery, such as wound infections and spinal deformities. Our case series shows that intramedullary spinal cord biopsies may provide tissue for obtaining histopatholgic diagnoses. However, the potential risks of complication, and the possibility of obtaining nondiagnostic tissue, should be discussed with patients, families and their medical treatment teams.

Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Various Foraminal Lesions at the Lumbosacral Lesion.

The stenosing foramen of L5–S1 by several degenerative diseases is one of the challenging areas on surgical approaching because of the deeper depth and steep slope in the lumbosacral junction. The floating view using unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery rather than docking into the Kambin’s zone can make the foraminal structures seen panoramically and permit dynamic handling of various instruments without destroying the facet joint and causing iatrogenic instability. Fine discrimination of structural margins in helps of the higher magnification and gentle manipulation of neural structures just as in open spine surgery could be guaranteed using floating technique from the target structures. Selective decompression with preserving innocent structures including facet joints could relieve foraminal lesions at the L5–S1 and decrease the necessity of fusion surgery caused by wider decompression and iatrogenic instability.

Epiduroscopic laser neural decompression as a treatment for migrated lumbar disc herniation

Objective:Epiduroscopic laser neural decompression (ELND) is one of the more invasive techniques for managing patients with herniated lumbar disc. However, ELND can be used to treat, and diagnose the epidural pathology; indications for ELND remain controversial, especially, when applied in cases of large disc extrusion and migrated disc. This paper reports cases of patients that were satisfied with the ELND procedure for migrated lumbar disc herniation.Methods:We reviewed the medical records of patients that received ELND for migrated lumbar disc in an outpatient clinic. The patients complained of low back pain with radicular pain with an intensity over 5 on a numeric rating scale (NRS) that had persisted for over 1 month. The Magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) showed migrated lumbar disc herniation, and patients opted for ELND because they had previously experienced nerve blocks, and did not want to receive open surgery for their pain, even after the limitations of ELND were explained.Results:Patients reported that their pain was dramatically reduced, and other discomfort symptoms, such as numbness, were also reduced after the procedure. In follow-up, all of the patients were satisfied with the results.Conclusion:We applied the ENLD procedure to mechanically, remove disc material that compressed the spinal nerve, and the patients were satisfied, and reported symptom relief. ELND was a sufficient treatment approach for lumbar migrated herniated disc for patients who did not want to undergo open spine surgery.

Endoscopic Transforaminal and Lateral Recess Decompression After Previous Spinal Surgery.

Leg pain and back pain after lumbar laminectomy and spinal decompression fusion surgery are common and often related to persistent lumbar foraminal or lateral recess stenosis. Although persistent symptoms often stem from incomplete decompression during the primary index surgery, recurrent symptoms may also be the result of intervertebral cage subsidence due to loss of intervertebral and neuroforaminal height. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using the outpatient transforaminal decompression procedure as an alternative to inpatient open procedure in revision decompression surgery, with the intent of minimizing the incidence of perioperative and postoperative surgical complications while reducing both direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment, shortening time to patient postoperative narcotic independence, and shortening time of patient return to daily activities. A total of 48 patients with conclusive diagnostic imaging and interventional workup underwent endoscopic transforaminal and lateral recess decompression for both persistent or recurrent leg and/or low back pain following previous lumbar laminectomy (22 patients) or decompression fusion surgery (26 patients). In addition to radiographic studies, patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, and clinical outcomes were evaluated with the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified Macnab criteria. At final follow-up, patients with single- and 2-level prior surgeries reported an average ODI reduction following their secondary surgery of 44.6%, with an average final score of 14.8. Less favorable ODI score reductions following secondary surgery (23.8%) were reported by patients who had more than one or a complex prior multilevel surgery. According to the modified Macnab criteria, "excellent" and "good" results were obtained with the secondary surgery in 79.1% (38 of 48) of patients with no more than a single 1- or 2-level prior lumbar surgery. The mean VAS score decreased from 7.7 ± 1.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 1.1 at final follow-up (P < .01). Fair and poor results with the secondary surgery were seen in 20.9% (10 of 48) of patients with several prior surgeries or complex multilevel previous lumbar surgeries. The level distribution for secondary surgery was as follows: L4-5 segment (26 levels; 54.1%), L5-S1 (14 levels; 29.2%), L3-4 (7 levels; 14.6%), and the L2-3 level (1 level; 2.1%). Postoperative complications were limited to irritation of the dorsal root ganglion, which occurred in 25% (12 of 48) of patients. There were no wound infections, nerve root injuries, foot drop, or admissions to a hospital for further postoperative care. All patients with "excellent" and "good" outcomes measured by modified Macnab criteria, who were working before and after the primary and secondary surgeries (27 of 38), reported earlier return to work after the endoscopic outpatient surgery (2.6 ± 0.8 weeks) than with the prior inpatient open spinal surgery (8.1 ± 4.5 weeks). Based on the 2012 Medicare fee schedule for professional fees, direct costs were 40.6% and indirect costs were 37.1% lower with the secondary endoscopic surgery compared with primary open surgery. Transforaminal decompression is an effective alternative to open revision lumbar spinal surgery to treat symptomatic spinal stenosis after previous lumbar surgery in patients with persistent or recurrent leg and low back pain. It can be safely done in an outpatient setting, while realizing savings in direct and indirect costs.

Risk factors for incidental durotomy during posterior open spine surgery for degenerative diseases in adults: A multicenter observational study.

Incidental durotomy (ID) is a common intraoperative complication of spine surgery. It can lead to persistent cerebrospinal fluid leakage, which may cause serious complications, including severe headache, pseudomeningocele formation, nerve root entrapment, and intracranial hemorrhage. As a result, it contributes to higher healthcare costs and poor patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to clarify the independent risk factors that can cause ID during posterior open spine surgery for degenerative diseases in adults. We conducted a prospective multicenter study of adult patients who underwent posterior open spine surgery for degenerative diseases at 10 participating hospitals from July 2010 to June 2013. A total of 4,652 consecutive patients were enrolled. We evaluated potential risk factors, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, the presence of diabetes mellitus, the use of hemodialysis, smoking status, steroid intake, location of the surgery, type of operative procedure, and past surgical history in the operated area. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors associated with ID. The incidence of ID was 8.2% (380/4,652). Corrective vertebral osteotomy and revision surgery were identified as independent risk factors for ID, while cervical surgery and discectomy were identified as factors that independently protected against ID during posterior open spine surgery for degenerative diseases in adults. Therefore, we identified 2 independent risk factors for and 2 protective factors against ID. These results may contribute to making surgeons aware of the risk factors for ID and can be used to counsel patients on the risks and complications associated with open spine surgery.

Recent Advances in Technique and Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in Adult Scoliosis.

Objective:Conventional open spinal surgery of adult scoliosis can be performed from anterior, posterior, or combined approach. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) was developed for the purpose of reducing the undesirable effects and complications. This review aimed to make a brief summary of recent studies of the approach and clinical outcomes of MISS in adult scoliosis.Data Sources:We conducted a systematic search from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and other literature databases to collect reports of surgical methods and clinical outcomes of MISS in treatment of adult scoliosis. Those reports were published up to March 2017 with the following key terms: “minimally invasive,” “spine,” “surgery,” and “scoliosis.”Study Selection:The inclusion criteria of the articles were as followings: diagnosed with adult degenerative scoliosis (DS) or adult idiopathic scoliosis; underwent MISS or open surgery; with follow-up data. The articles involving patients with congenital scoliosis or unknown type were excluded and those without any follow-up data were also excluded from the study. The initial search yielded 233 articles. After title and abstract extraction, 29 English articles were selected for full-text review. Of those, 20 studies with 831 patients diagnosed with adult DS or adult idiopathic scoliosis were reviewed. Seventeen were retrospective studies, and three were prospective studies.Results:The surgical technique reported in these articles was direct or extreme lateral interbody fusion, axial lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Among the clinical outcomes of these studies, the operated levels was 3–7, operative time was 2.3–8.5 h. Both the Cobb angle of coronal major curve and evaluation of Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale decreased after surgery. There were 323 complications reported in the 831 (38.9%) patients, including 150 (18.1%) motor or sensory deficits, and 111 (13.4%) implant-related complications.Conclusions:MISS can provide good radiological and self-evaluation improvement in treatment of adult scoliosis. More prospective studies will be needed before it is widely used.

Endoscopic Spine Surgery.

Surgical treatment of the degenerative disc disease has evolved from traditional open spine surgery to minimally invasive spine surgery including endoscopic spine surgery. Constant improvement in the imaging modality especially with introduction of the magnetic resonance imaging, it is possible to identify culprit degenerated disc segment and again with the discography it is possible to diagnose the pain generator and pathological degenerated disc very precisely and its treatment with minimally invasive approach. With improvements in the optics, high resolution camera, light source, high speed burr, irrigation pump etc, minimally invasive spine surgeries can be performed with various endoscopic techniques for lumbar, cervical and thoracic regions. Advantages of endoscopic spine surgeries are less tissue dissection and muscle trauma, reduced blood loss, less damage to the epidural blood supply and consequent epidural fibrosis and scarring, reduced hospital stay, early functional recovery and improvement in the quality of life & better cosmesis. With precise indication, proper diagnosis and good training, the endoscopic spine surgery can give equally good result as open spine surgery. Initially, endoscopic technique was restricted to the lumbar region but now it also can be used for cervical and thoracic disc herniations. Previously endoscopy was used for disc herniations which were contained without migration but now days it is used for highly up and down migrated disc herniations as well. Use of endoscopic technique in lumbar region was restricted to disc herniations but gradually it is also used for spinal canal stenosis and endoscopic assisted fusion surgeries. Endoscopic spine surgery can play important role in the treatment of adolescent disc herniations especially for the persons who engage in the competitive sports and the athletes where less tissue trauma, cosmesis and early functional recovery is desirable. From simple chemonucleolysis to current day endoscopic procedures the history of minimally invasive spine surgery is interesting. Appropriate indications, clear imaging prior to surgery and preplanning are keys to successful outcome. In this article basic procedures of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy through transforaminal and interlaminar routes, percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy, percutaneous endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy and percutaneous endoscopic thoracic discectomy are discussed.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Spine Surgery: What Does the Best Evidence Tell Us?

Background:Spine surgery has been transformed significantly by the growth of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures. Easily marketable to patients as less invasive with smaller incisions, MIS is often perceived as superior to traditional open spine surgery. The highest quality evidence comparing MIS with open spine surgery was examined.Methods:A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving MIS versus open spine surgery was performed using the Entrez gateway of the PubMed database for articles published in English up to December 28, 2015. RCTs and systematic reviews of RCTs of MIS versus open spine surgery were evaluated for three particular entities: Cervical disc herniation, lumbar disc herniation, and posterior lumbar fusion.Results:A total of 17 RCTs were identified, along with six systematic reviews. For cervical disc herniation, MIS provided no difference in overall function, arm pain relief, or long-term neck pain. In lumbar disc herniation, MIS was inferior in providing leg/low back pain relief, rehospitalization rates, quality of life improvement, and exposed the surgeon to >10 times more radiation in return for shorter hospital stay and less surgical site infection. In posterior lumbar fusion, MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) had significantly reduced 2-year societal cost, fewer medical complications, reduced time to return to work, and improved short-term Oswestry Disability Index scores at the cost of higher revision rates, higher readmission rates, and more than twice the amount of intraoperative fluoroscopy.Conclusion:The highest levels of evidence do not support MIS over open surgery for cervical or lumbar disc herniation. However, MIS TLIF demonstrates advantages along with higher revision/readmission rates. Regardless of patient indication, MIS exposes the surgeon to significantly more radiation; it is unclear how this impacts patients. These results should optimize informed decision-making regarding MIS versus open spine surgery, particularly in the current advertising climate greatly favoring MIS.

Minimally invasive spine surgery: Hurdles to be crossed

MISS as a concept is noble and all surgeons need to address and minimize the surgical morbidity for better results. However, we need to be cautions and not fall prey into accepting that minimally invasive spine surgery can be done only when certain metal access systems are used. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has come a long way since the description of endoscopic discectomy in 1997 and minimally invasive TLIF (mTLIF) in 2003. Today there is credible evidence (though not level-I) that MISS has comparable results to open spine surgery with the advantage of early postoperative recovery and decreased blood loss and infection rates. However, apart from decreasing the muscle trauma and decreasing the muscle dissection during multilevel open spinal instrumentation, there has been little contribution to address the other morbidity parameters like operative time , blood loss , access to decompression and atraumatic neural tissue handling with the existing MISS technologies. Since all these parameters contribute to a greater degree than posterior muscle trauma for the overall surgical morbidity, we as surgeons need to introspect before we accept the concept of minimally invasive spine surgery being reduced to surgeries performed with a few tubular retractors. A spine surgeon needs to constantly improve his skills and techniques so that he can minimize blood loss, minimize traumatic neural tissue handling and minimizing operative time without compromising on the surgical goals. These measures actually contribute far more, to decrease the morbidity than approach related muscle damage alone. Minimally invasine spine surgery , though has come a long way, needs to provide technical solutions to minimize all the morbidity parameters involved in spine surgery, before it can replace most of the open spine surgeries, as in the case of laparoscopic surgery or arthroscopic surgery.

Epidural tramadol via intraoperatively placed catheter as a standalone analgesic after spinal fusion procedure: An analysis of efficacy and cost.

Objective:This was a prospective analysis of epidural tramadol as a single analgesic agent delivered through intraoperatively placed epidural catheter for postoperative pain relief after spinal fusion procedures in terms of efficacy and cost.Materials and Methods:Twenty patients who underwent spinal fusion procedures were included in the study. After completion of the procedure, an epidural catheter was placed at the highest level of exposed dura and brought out through a separate tract. Postoperatively, tramadol was infused into the epidural space via the catheter at a dose of 1 mg/kg diluted in 10 ml of saline. The dosage frequency was arbitrarily fixed at every 6 h during the first 2 days and thereafter reduced to every 8 h after the first 2 days till day 5. Conventional intravenous analgesics were used only if additional analgesia was required as assessed by visual analog scale (VAS).Results:Patients’ VAS score was assessed every 4 h from the day of surgery. Patients with a VAS score of 6 or more were given additional analgesia in the form of intravenous paracetamol. Of the twenty patients, eight patients needed additional analgesia during the first 24 h and none required additional analgesia after the first 24 h. The median VAS score was 7 within the first 24 h and progressively declined thereafter. Epidural tramadol was noted to be many times cheaper than conventional parenteral analgesics.Conclusion:Epidural tramadol infusion is safe and effective as a standalone analgesic after open spinal fusion surgery, especially after the 1st postoperative day. Intraoperative placement of the epidural catheter is a simple way of delivering tramadol to the epidural space. The cost of analgesia after spinal fusion surgery can be reduced significantly using epidural tramadol alone.

P160 - Minimally Invasive versus Open Spine Surgery: What Does the Best Evidence Tell Us?

Background: Spine surgery has been transformed significantly by the growth of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures. Easily marketable to patients as less invasive with smaller incisions, MIS is often perceived as superior to traditional open spine surgery. The highest quality evidence comparing MIS with open spine surgery was examined. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving MIS versus open spine surgery was performed using the Entrez gateway of the PubMed database for articles published in English up to December 28, 2015. RCTs and systematic reviews of RCTs of MIS versus open spine surgery were evaluated for three particular entities: Cervical disc herniation, lumbar disc herniation, and posterior lumbar fusion. Results: A total of 17 RCTs were identified, along with six systematic reviews. For cervical disc herniation, MIS provided no difference in overall function, arm pain relief, or long-term neck pain. In lumbar disc herniation, MIS was inferior in providing leg/low back pain relief, rehospitalization rates, quality of life improvement, and exposed the surgeon to >10 times more radiation in return for shorter hospital stay and less surgical site infection. In posterior lumbar fusion, MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) had significantly reduced 2-year societal cost, fewer medical complications, reduced time to return to work, and improved short-term Oswestry Disability Index scores at the cost of higher revision rates, higher readmission rates, and more than twice the amount of intraoperative fluoroscopy. Conclusion: The highest levels of evidence do not support MIS over open surgery for cervical or lumbar disc herniation. However, MIS TLIF demonstrates advantages along with higher revision/readmission rates. Regardless of patient indication, MIS exposes the surgeon to significantly more radiation; it is unclear how this impacts patients. These results should optimize informed decision-making regarding MIS versus open spine surgery, particularly in the current advertising climate greatly favoring MIS.