This article reviews the research progress on the direct regulation of the immune system by the central nervous system. The traditional "neuro-endocrine-immune" network model has confirmed the close connection between the central nervous system and the immune system. However, due to the complex mediating role of the endocrine system, its application in clinical treatment is limited. In recent years, the direct regulation of the peripheral immune system through the central nervous system has provided new methods for the clinical treatment of neuro-immune related diseases. This article analyzes the changes in the peripheral immune system after central nervous system injury and summarizes the effects of various stimulation methods, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), deep brain stimulation (DBS), spinal cord stimulation(SCS), and vagus nerve stimulation(VNS), on the peripheral immune system(Figure1). Additionally, it explores the clinical research progress and future development directions of these stimulation methods. It is proposed that these neural regulation techniques exhibit positive effects in reducing peripheral inflammation, protecting immune cells and organ functions, and improving immunosuppressive states, providing new perspectives and therapeutic potential for the treatment of immune-related diseases.
Background: Early screw loosening, a relevant complication after posterior thoracolumbar fusion, indicates high mechanical stress during rod connection. Force Control is a surgical technology that goes beyond the usual to identify, control and minimize intended and unintended, usually unnoticed forces to achieve the most stressless fixation. Optimized, extremely lightweight instruments support this principle on part of the pedicle screw system (PSS). The study objective is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel PSS for Force Control fusion surgery.
Methods: In this literature-controlled observational study, patients underwent surgery with a PSS that supports Force Control. Safety is demonstrated 1 year postoperatively by non-inferiority in screw loosening rate and efficacy by non-inferiority in ODI improvement. Secondary endpoints: 2-year ODI, spine-related AEs and outcomes. Statistical significance p<0.025 (Bonferroni correction 0.05/2).
Results: 75 patients enrolled, main diagnoses were trauma (73.3%), spinal stenosis (17.3%), degenerative disc disease (6.7%). Screw loosening rate at 1-year was 2.7%, being not inferior (p=0.005) to the control group at 9.2%. Mean ODI improvement of 49.3 showed non-inferiority (p<0.001) versus 35.2 in the control group. Mean 2-year ODI was 19, mean VAS back pain improved from 80.3 to 24.1 (3-month) and 21.6 (1-year). The implant-related revision rate was 4.1%.
Conclusions: Force Control, aiming to go beyond the familiar by controlling intended and unintended forces to achieve the most stressless fixation, is a safe and efficient method. Lightweight instruments are designed to allow identifying, controlling and reducing mechanical stress. Patients benefit from Force Control regarding screw loosening and clinical outcome.
Introduction: Despite the surge in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion (PCDF) procedures over the past two decades, there remains a paucity of data on their comparative costs in geriatric patients with cervical disc herniation. This study provides a comprehensive cost analysis of ACDF and PCDF in this patient population.
Methods: A total of 282 geriatric patients who underwent ACDF or PCDF for cervical disc herniation over a 12-year period were analyzed to assess total surgical costs, including pre-operative, procedural, and post-operative expenses. ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD Test was used in a propensity score-matched cohort to compare cost differences between ACDF and PCDF across various cost categories.
Results: In a geriatric cohort of 282 patients with cervical disc herniation meeting inclusion criteria, 221 (78.4%) underwent ACDF and 61 (21.6%) received PCDF (2-4 levels). The average age was 71.3±5.6 years, with no significant demographic differences between groups. On ANOVA, rehabilitation costs were 1.88 times higher (p<0.001), and blood bank costs were 2.16 times higher (p=0.04) for PCDF patients, corresponding with significantly greater estimated blood loss (209.9±217.7 mL vs. 66.7±107.0 mL, p<0.001). After propensity score matching, PCDF remained associated with significantly higher rehabilitation costs (+170.79%, p<0.001), blood bank costs (+139.29%, p=0.005), and total procedural costs (+33.92%, p=0.015).
Conclusion: ACDF procedures in geriatric patients with cervical disc herniation are significantly cheaper than PCDF in terms of rehabilitation and blood bank costs, offering valuable insights for optimizing neurosurgical decision-making and high-value care.