International Journal of Spine Surgery最新文献

Background: Spinal Langerhans cell histiocytosis can manifest as solitary site unifocal form or as systemic form in children. The management options for solitary spinal site unifocal form are many. They include spontaneous resolution of the lesion and supervised treatment, steroid injection of the lesion, systemic chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery. Multiple options create a decision-making dilemma for the treating specialist. The authors sought to formulate a management algorithm of spinal Langerhans cell histiocytosis based on Garg's grading of radiographic vertebral body collapse.

Materials and methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-2020 guidelines were followed in conducting the review and studies were filtered from established medical databases. Articles published between 2003 and 2022 were included after applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The first and second authors reviewed the abstracts of filtered studies before including them. The study was registered with Prospero. The bias assessment of included studies was assessed using the MINOR's criteria.

Results: Eight retrospective case series were analyzed. Within these studies, a total of 116 children (mean age 7.4 years) had undergone treatment. The mean follow-up period was 52.1 months. Among these patients, there were 37 tumors in the cervical spine, 40 in the thoracic spine, 25 in the lumbar spine, and a single tumor in the sacrum. Systemic chemotherapy has been found to reduce the risk of radiographic vertebral body collapse (p < 0.05). Surgery provides optimal outcomes in patients with Garg's grade IB , II spinal tumors and restores vertebral body height (p < 0.05). No case series were found pertaining to grade III. Reconstitution of vertebral body height, an important radiological parameter indicating the endpoint or healing of the lesion, was early achieved with surgery followed by systemic chemotherapy, bracing, and supervised management.

Conclusion: Observation can be preferred in Garg's grade IA. Grade IB and II tumors respond well to surgery. Treatment for grade III tumors needs to be tailored on an individual basis.

Grade of recommendation: C.

Background: Due to rapidly rising health care costs, leveraging outpatient surgery to reduce hospital inpatient burden is being explored. This study provides a systematic review of the literature on outpatient anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with pooled analysis to determine its safety and feasibility.

Methods: Embase (Elsevier), MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), CINAHL (EBSCO), and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) were searched on 8 April 2024 for articles mentioning the following search concepts: (1) ambulatory; (2) outpatient; and (3) ALIF surgery. Included studies had (1) patients undergoing outpatient ALIF; (2) an inpatient control group; (3) a sample size of ≥5 in each cohort; and (4) a population aged ≥18 years. Outcome data were extracted from studies meeting inclusion criteria, and Newcastle-Ottawa scores were assigned to included studies lacking a prospective, randomized design. Fixed and random effects models were used to establish ORs and mean difference with 95% CIs for each outcome.

Results: Pooled analysis included results from 4 studies. A total of 2070 patients underwent outpatient ALIF and 12,554 underwent inpatient ALIF. The results showed that compared with inpatient ALIF, outpatient ALIF resulted in a statistically significant decrease in postoperative adverse events (OR -0.89, 95% CI [-1.69, -0.09], I ² = 54.88%, P = 0.03), comparable readmission rates (OR 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.20], I ² = 0%, P = 0.816), and nearly statistically significant decrease in reoperation rates (OR -0.41, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.00], I ² = 0%, P = 0.05).

Discussion: These meta-analyses suggest that outpatient ALIF is associated with a statistically significant decrease in postoperative adverse events without a significant difference in hospital readmission or reoperation rates. These results suggest that in carefully selected patients, outpatient ALIF is safe and feasible. This study is limited by pooled analysis of retrospective data.

Clinical relevance: This systematic review contributes to the assessment of the safety of outpatient ALIF spine surgery.

Level of evidence: 3:

Background: Metastatic spine tumor surgery (MSTS) is an important treatment modality of metastatic spinal disease (MSD). Open spine surgery (OSS) was previously the gold standard of treatment till the early 2010s. However, advancements in MSTS in recent years have led to the advent of minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) techniques for the treatment of MSD. The clear benefits of MISS have resulted in a current paradigm shift toward today's gold standard of MISS and early adjuvant radiotherapy in treating MSD patients. Nonetheless, despite improvements in surgical techniques and the rise of literature supporting MISS for MSD, there are still certain situations whereby MISS is not desirable or even suitable. There has also yet to be any literature describing the considerations of not using MISS in MSD in today's clinical context.

Methods: A narrative review was conducted for this manuscript. All studies related to OSS and MISS in MSTS were included.

Results: A total of 54 studies were included in this review. These studies discussed various advantages of MISS for MSD in today's clinical context, including the patient profile, location of vertebrae involved with metastasis requiring treatment, tumor characteristics, as well as equipment availability.

Conclusion: This study establishes situations in which MISS can be less applicable despite the advantages it may confer over traditional OSS. MSTS should be individualized, depending on the experience of the surgeon. OSS is a time-tested approach that still holds weight in MSTS and should be readily utilized depending on the clinical situation.

Level of evidence: 4:

Patient-centric decision-making has imbued all aspects of health care, including spine surgery. This review describes how spine surgeons can use evolving technologies and knowledge of disease and pain states to tailor their surgical approach to the individual patient. This includes preoperative screening for and optimization of low bone mineral density, intraoperative selection of implant material and customization of interbody cages and screws, and postoperative personalization of pain regimens and rehabilitation courses. By working in a multidisciplinary fashion, spine surgeons can avail themselves of these advances to provide individualized care.

Background: Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is a minimally invasive approach to treat cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR), which is a common condition caused secondary to disc herniation, disc degeneration, uncal osteophytes, and other conditions manifesting as neuropathic radicular pain. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard surgical technique for treating CSR. However, it has several disadvantages, including loss of mobile segment, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), implant- and approach-related complications, and high hospitalization costs.

Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of UBE decompression for CSR.

Methods: After obtaining IRB approval, a single-center retrospective study was undertaken. Included patients underwent UBE decompression for CSR with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and length of hospital stay were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were assessed using VAS scores for neck and arm pain, and NDI scores were measure preoperatively and at 1 and 6 months after UBE decompression. A repeated analysis of variance test was performed to measure the difference between VAS and NDI scores.

Results: Twenty patients (M: 15, F: 5) with a mean age of 56.7 ± 10.2 years were included. The mean follow-up period was 8.4 ± 1.8 months. The mean surgical time was 64.3±10.6 minutes. The average length of hospital stay was 1 day. At the final follow-up, the mean VAS for arm pain improved from 6.4 ± 0.7 to 0.6 ± 0.5 (92% improvement) and the mean VAS for neck pain improved from 3.3 ± 0.4 to 2.0 ± 0.2 (40% improvement). NDI score improved from 23.2 ± 1.95 to 5.7 ± 0.6 at the final follow-up (75% improvement). There were no complications.

Conclusion: UBE is a safe and effective surgical treatment option for patients with CSR with excellent clinical outcomes.

Clinical relevance: Clinical relevance of this case series study is to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the novel unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and its short term clinical outcomes.

Level of evidence: 4:

Background: Blunt spinal injuries (BSIs) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Management typically involves stabilization of the spinal column and may include chemoprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. The optimal timing of chemoprophylaxis initiation in operatively managed BSI patients remains debated.

Objective: Analyze available literature on optimal chemoprophylaxis timing for the prevention of VTE in patients postinjury undergoing operative repair.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched for studies assessing chemoprophylaxis timing in adult BSI patients. Inclusion criteria focused on operatively managed BSIs and anticoagulant usage assessment.

Results: Three studies involving 4345 patients were included. Early chemoprophylaxis initiation was associated with significantly lower deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and overall VTE incidence compared with late initiation. No significant differences were found in pulmonary embolism (PE) incidence or mortality.

Conclusion: Early anticoagulant administration after spinal fixation for BSI reduces DVT and overall VTE risk without impacting PE incidence or mortality. Further research is recommended to solidify these findings and address existing gaps in the literature.

Clinical relevance: Early chemoprophylaxis initiation in operatively managed BSI patients reduces DVT and overall VTE risk without affecting PE incidence or mortality LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is prevalent among octogenarians, causing significant pain and disability. Surgical intervention is often required because of the ineffectiveness of conservative treatments. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy (BED) in octogenarians with severe LSS, evaluating its potential as a minimally invasive surgical option.

Methods: This retrospective study included 107 patients aged 80 years or older who underwent BED for LSS between March 2017 and December 2022. Data were collected from electronic medical records, including demographic information, clinical outcomes, and surgical details. Patients with fractures, infectious spondylitis, herniated discs, and follow-up less than 12 months were excluded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, and painDETECT at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Results: The mean age of the 107 patients was 84.1 years, with 59% being women. Significant improvements were observed in visual analog scale scores for lower back and lower extremities pain, Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, and painDETECT scores, indicating reduced pain, decreased disability, and enhanced quality of life. There were no significant differences in outcomes between patients aged 80 to 84 and those 85 or older. Surgery-related outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, and complications were similar in both age groups.

Conclusions: BED is a safe and effective treatment for LSS in octogenarians, providing significant pain relief and functional improvement. This minimally invasive technique is also viable for patients older than 85 years, without increased risk of complications, supporting its broader indications in managing LSS in the elderly.

Clinical relevance: This study highlights the efficacy and safety of BED for LSS in octogenarians, demonstrating its potential to improve quality of life and function with low risks, making it a feasible option for elderly patients.

Level of evidence: 4:

Background: There is a lack of consensus on the use of postoperative bracing for lumbar degenerative conditions. Spine surgeons typically determine whether to apply postoperative braces based primarily on clinical experience rather than robust, evidence-based medical data. Thus, the present study sought to assess the impact of postoperative bracing on clinical outcomes, complications, and fusion rates following lumbar fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spinal conditions.

Methods: Only randomized controlled studies published between January 1990 and 20 October 2023 were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcome measures consisted of pre- and postoperative assessments of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Improvements in VAS and ODI scores were analyzed in the early postoperative period (1 month after operation) and at final follow-up, respectively. The analysis also encompassed fusion rates and complications.

Results: Five studies with 362 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. In the early postoperative period, the brace group showed a relatively better improvement in ODI scores compared with the no-brace group (19.47 vs 18.18), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.34). Similarly, during the late postoperative period, the brace group demonstrated a slightly greater improvement in VAS scores in comparison to the no-brace group (4.05 vs 3.84), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.30). The complication rate was relatively lower in the brace group compared with the no-brace group (14.9% vs 17.4%), although there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.83). Importantly, there were no substantial differences in fusion rates between patients with or without braces.

Conclusion: The present meta-analysis revealed that the implementation of a brace following lumbar fusion surgery did not yield substantial differences in terms of postoperative pain relief, functional recovery, complication rates, or fusion rates when compared with cases where no brace was employed.

Clinical relevance: This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the clinical impact of postoperative bracing following lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spinal conditions.

Level of evidence: 1: