Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is convincing preclinical evidence that early decompression in the setting of spinal cord injury (SCI) improves neurologic outcomes. However, the effect of early surgical decompression in patients with acute SCI remains uncertain. Our objective was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of early (<24 hours after injury) versus late (≥ 24 hours after injury) decompressive surgery after traumatic cervical SCI. We performed a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study (Surgical Timing In Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study: STASCIS) in adults aged 16-80 with cervical SCI. Enrolment occurred between 2002 and 2009 at 6 North American centers. The primary outcome was ordinal change in ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included assessments of complications rates and mortality. A total of 313 patients with acute cervical SCI were enrolled. Of these, 182 underwent early surgery, at a mean of 14.2(± 5.4) hours, with the remaining 131 having late surgery, at a mean of 48.3(± 29.3) hours. Of the 222 patients with follow-up available at 6 months post injury, 19.8% of patients undergoing early surgery showed a ≥ 2 grade improvement in AIS compared to 8.8% in the late decompression group (OR = 2.57, 95% CI:1.11,5.97). In the multivariate analysis, adjusted for preoperative neurological status and steroid administration, the odds of at least a 2 grade AIS improvement were 2.8 times higher amongst those who underwent early surgery as compared to those who underwent late surgery (OR = 2.83, 95% CI:1.10,7.28). During the 30 day post injury period, there was 1 mortality in both of the surgical groups. Complications occurred in 24.2% of early surgery patients and 30.5% of late surgery patients (p = 0.21). Decompression prior to 24 hours after SCI can be performed safely and is associated with improved neurologic outcome, defined as at least a 2 grade AIS improvement at 6 months follow-up.

Purpose The K-line, which is a virtual line that connects the midpoints of the anteroposterior diameter of the spinal canal at C2 and C7 in a plain lateral radiogram, is a useful preoperative predictive indicator for sufficient decompression by laminoplasty (LMP) for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). K-line is defined as (+) when the peak of OPLL does not exceed the K-line, and is defined as (–) when the peak of OPLL exceeds the K-line. For patients with K-line (–) OPLL, LMP often results in poor outcome. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcome of LMP, posterior decompression with instrumented fusion (PDF) and anterior decompression and fusion (ADF) for patients with K-line (–) OPLL. Methods The present study included patients who underwent surgical treatment including LMP, PDF and ADF for K-line (–) cervical OPLL. We retrospectively compared the clinical outcome of those patients in terms of Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA score) recovery rate. Results JOA score recovery rate was significantly higher in the ADF group compared with that in the LMP group and the PDF group. The JOA score recovery rate in the PDF group was significantly higher than that in the LMP group. Conclusions LMP should not be used for K-line (–) cervical OPLL. ADF is one of the suitable surgical treatments for K-line (–) OPLL. Both ADF and PDF are applicable for K-line (–) OPLL according to indications set by each institute and surgical decisions.

Purpose To compare the clinical effectiveness of decompression plus fusion and decompression alone for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence was performed. Methods A search of the literature was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Relevant studies comparing decompression plus fusion and decompression alone were selected according to eligibility criteria. Predefined endpoints were extracted and meta-analyzed from the identified studies. Results Four randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies were eligible. The pooled data revealed that fusion was associated with significantly higher rates of satisfaction and lower leg pain scores when compared with decompression alone. However, fusion significantly increased the intraoperative blood loss, operative time and hospital stay. Both techniques had similar ODI, back pain scores, complication rate, and reoperation rate. Conclusions Based on the available evidence, decompression plus fusion maybe be better than decompression alone in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Fusion had advantages of improvement of clinical satisfaction, as well as reduction of postoperative leg pain, with similar complication rate to decompression alone.

Background During the last 20 years several less-invasive anterior approaches to the lumbar spine have become standard, including the extreme lateral transpsoas approach. Although it is associated with a lower risk of vascular injury compared with anterior midline approaches, neuromonitoring is considered mandatory to avoid neurologic complications. Interestingly, despite neuromonitoring, the reported risk of neurologic deficits with the extreme lateral transpsoas approach is greater than observed with other anterior approaches. An alternative lateral, oblique, psoas-sparing approach, recently named the oblique lumbar interbody fusion, uses the anatomic pathway between the abdominal vessels anteriorly and the lumbar plexus laterally to decrease the risk of neurologic and vascular injury; however, as yet, little on this new approach has been reported. Questions/purposes We asked: what proportion of patients experienced (1) perioperative complications (overall complications), (2) vascular complications, and (3) neurologic complications after less-invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion through the oblique lumbar interbody approach at one high-volume center? Methods We performed a chart review of intra- and perioperative complications of all patients who had undergone minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion through a lateral psoas-sparing approach from L1 to L5 during a 12-year period (1998–2010). During the study period, the oblique, psoas-sparing approach was the preferred approach of the participating surgeons in this study, and it was performed in 812 patients, all of whom are studied here, and all of whom have complete data for assessment of the short-term (inpatient-only) complications that we studied. In general, we performed this approach whenever possible, although it generally was avoided when a patient previously had undergone an open retro- or transperitoneal abdominal procedure, or previous implantation of hernia mesh in the abdomen. During the study period, posterior fusion techniques were used in an additional 573 patients instead of the oblique lumbar interbody fusion when we needed to decompress the spinal canal beyond what is possible through the anterior approach. In case of spinal stenosis calling for fusion in combination with a high disc space, severe endplate irregularity, or severe biomechanical instability, we combined posterior decompression with oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 367 patients. Complications were evaluated by an independent observer who was not involved in the decision-making process, the operative procedure, nor the postoperative care by reviewing the inpatient records and operative notes. Results A total of 3.7% (30/812) of patients who underwent the oblique lumbar interbody fusion experienced a complication intraoperatively or during the hospital stay. During the early postoperative period there were two superficial (0.24%) and three deep (0.37%) wound infections and five superficial (0.62%) and six deep (0.86%) hematomas. There were no abdominal injuries or urologic injuries. The percentage of vascular complications was 0.37% (n = 3). The percentage of neurologic complications was 0.37% (n = 3). Conclusions The risk of vascular complications after oblique lumbar interbody fusion seems to be lower compared with reported risk for anterior midline approaches, and the risk of neurologic complications after oblique lumbar interbody fusion seems to be lower than what has been reported with the extreme lateral transpsoas approach; however, we caution readers that head-to-head studies will need to be performed to confirm our very preliminary comparisons and results with the oblique psoas-sparing approach. Similarly, future studies will need to evaluate this approach in terms of later-presenting complications, such as infection and pseudarthrosis formation, which could not be assessed using this inpatient-only approach. Nevertheless, with the results of this study the oblique psoas-sparing approach can be described as a less-invasive alternative for anterior lumbar fusion surgery from L1 to L5 with a low risk of vascular and neurologic damage and without costly intraoperative neuromonitoring tools. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.

Background Core decompression (CD) is an important method for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). Few articles investigate the influence of core decompression on outcomes of ONFH. This study was carried out to observe the safety and effectiveness of core decompression in the treatment of ONFH. Methods A comprehensive literature search of databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed to collect the related studies. The medical subject headings used were “femur head necrosis” and “Core decompression.” The relevant words in title or abstract included but not limited to “Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head,” “femoral head necrosis,” “avascular necrosis of femoral head,” and “ischemic necrosis of femoral head.” The methodological index for nonrandomized studies was adopted for assessing the studies included in this review. Results Thirty-two studies included 1865 patients (2441 hips). Twenty-one studies (1301 hips) using Ficat staging standard, 7 studies (338hips) using Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) staging standard, and University of Pennsylvania system for staging avascular necrosis (UPSS) staging criteria for 4 studies (802 hips). All the studies recorded the treatment, 22 studies (1379 hips) were treated with core decompression (CD) alone, and 7 studies (565 hips) were treated with core decompression combined with autologous bone (CD Autologous bone). Nine subjects (497 hips) were treated with core decompression combined with autologous bone marrow (CD Marrow). Twenty-seven studies (2120 hips) documented the number of conversion to total hip replacement (THA), and 26 studies (1752hips) documented the number of radiographic progression (RP). Twenty-one studies recorded the types of complications and the number of cases, a total of 69 cases. The random-effect model was used for meta-analysis, and the results showed that the overall success rate was 65%. The rate of success showed significant difference on the outcomes of different stages. The rate of success, conversion to THA, and radiographic progression showed significant difference on the outcomes of ONFH using different treatments. Conclusions Core decompression is an effective and safe method of treating ONFH. The combined use of autologous bone or bone marrow can increase the success rate. For advanced femoral head necrosis, the use of CD should be cautious. High-quality randomized controlled trials and prospective studies will be necessary to clarify the effects of different etiology factors, treatments, and postoperative rehabilitation. Until then, the surgeon can choose core decompression to treat ONFH depending on the patient’s condition. Level of evidence I Meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes between extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. One hundred-six patients were enrolled; 44 were treated with MIS–TLIF (direct decompression group; DP), and 62 were treated with XLIF (indirect decompression group; IDP). Perioperative indexes included operation time and intraoperative bleeding. Perioperative indexes preoperative and postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for low back pain (NRS-BP), leg pain (NRS-LP), and leg numbness (NRS-LN), and the preoperative score on the Japanese version of the painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ-J) were also assessed. The average follow-up period for the collection of NRS scores was 12.6 months. The operation time was significantly shorter in the IDP than in the DP group (109.9 ± 35.4 vs. 153.3 ± 50.9 min; p  < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was also significantly less in the IDP group than in the DP group (85.4 ± 125.4 vs. 258.3 ± 220.4 mL; p  < 0.001). The PDQ-J score and preoperative NRS scores (NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and NRS-LN) did not differ significantly between groups. Less improvement in the NRS-BP (ΔNRS-BP) was observed in the DP group than in the IDP group ( p  < 0.05). Although pain improved after surgery in both groups, IDP surgery was advantageous in minimizing bleeding and preserving posterior support elements such as the facet joints, lamina, and paraspinal muscles. These findings suggest that this may have contributed to the higher rate of improvement in low back pain compared with DP surgery.

ObjectiveTo determine the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery in adult patients with subacromial pain syndrome lasting for more than 3 months.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Main outcome measuresPain, physical function and health-related quality of life.Data sourcesSystematic searches for benefits and harms were conducted to 23 July 2018 in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing subacromial decompression surgery for subacromial pain syndrome with any other treatment(s). For harms, we included prospective cohort studies.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently determined eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies. Thirty patients seeking primary or outpatient care for subacromial pain syndrome and a parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input regarding systematic review design and interpretation.ResultsThere was high certainty evidence of no additional benefit of subacromial decompression surgery over placebo surgery in reducing pain at 1 year following surgery (mean difference [MD] −0.26, 95% CI −0.84 to 0.33, minimally important difference [MID] 1.5) or improving physical function at 1–2 years (MD 2.8, 95% CI −1.4 to 6.9, MID 8.3). There was moderate certainty evidence for no additional benefit of subacromial decompression surgery on health-related quality of life at 1 year (MD −0.03 points, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.06, MID 0.07). There was moderate certainty evidence for six serious harms per 1000 (95% CI 5 to 7) patients undergoing subacromial decompression.ConclusionSubacromial decompression surgery provided no important benefit compared with placebo surgery or exercise therapy, and probably carries a small risk of serious harms.Systematic reviewregistration numberCRD42018086862.

Purpose To investigate the epidemiological prevalence of C5 palsy in patients following cervical decompressive surgery. Methods We searched the PUBMED database for relevant studies that mentioned the incidence of C5 palsy after cervical surgery. We also manually screened reference lists for additional qualified articles. Relevant prevalence estimates were calculated by an appropriate meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were also performed, respectively. Results Finally, a total of 79 studies, with 704 C5 palsy cases in 13,621 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of C5 palsy was 5.3 % (95 % CI 4.6–6.0 %). Individuals after posterior cervical surgery (5.8 %) had a slightly higher prevalence than those after anterior surgery (5.2 %), and a similar trend was observed between ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) (5.8 %) and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) (4.5 %). The highest prevalence (11.0 %) was found in patients who underwent laminectomy and fusion (LIF), while those who received anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) had the lowest prevalence (3.3 %). Other intermediate prevalence estimates increased gradually, from cervical laminoplasty-only (CLP-only) (5.1 %), to CLP plus other posterior procedures (6.5 %) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) (7.5 %). The prevalence was significantly higher in male (5.2 %) than in female (2.2 %) patients. In most cases, C5 palsy was unilateral and transient, and diagnosed within 3 days (3.4 %). Conclusion Cervical surgery is associated with high risk of C5 palsy, particularly in patients who received LIF and in male patients. These figures may be useful in the estimation of the probability of C5 palsy following cervical surgery.

Background There is an inherently difficult learning curve associated with minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to spinal decompression and fusion. The association between complication rate and the learning curve remains unclear. Questions/purposes We performed a systematic review for articles that evaluated the learning curves of MIS procedures for the spine, defined as the change in frequency of complications and length of surgical time as case number increased, for five types of MIS for the spine. Methods We conducted a systematic review in the PubMed database using the terms “minimally invasive spine surgery AND complications AND learning curve” followed by a manual citation review of included manuscripts. Clinical outcome and learning curve metrics were categorized for analysis by surgical procedure (MIS lumbar decompression procedures, MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and MIS cervical procedures). As the most consistent parameters used to evaluate the learning curve were procedure time and complication rate as a function of chronologic case number, our analysis focused on these. The search strategy identified 15 original studies that included 966 minimally invasive procedures. Learning curve parameters were correlated to chronologic procedure number in 14 of these studies. Results The most common learning curve complication for decompressive procedures was durotomy. For fusion procedures, the most common complications were implant malposition, neural injury, and nonunion. The overall postoperative complication rate was 11% (109 of 966 cases). The learning curve was overcome for operative time and complications as a function of case numbers in 20 to 30 consecutive cases for most techniques discussed within this review. Conclusions The quantitative assessment of the procedural learning curve for MIS techniques for the spine remains challenging because the MIS techniques have different learning curves and because they have not been assessed in a consistent manner across studies. Complication rates may be underestimated by the studies we identified because surgeons tend to select patients carefully during the early learning curve period. The field of MIS would benefit from a standardization of study design and collected parameters in future learning curve investigations.

A prospective study was performed to evaluate the impact of surgical decompression (SD) and instrumented fusion within 8 h versus 8–24 h after injury on neurological recovery after cervical traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) in patients operated on in the UMC Ljubljana, Slovenia. Only patients with the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) grades of A through C and with MRI-confirmed spinal cord compression were enrolled. The primary outcome was the change in AIS grade at the 6-month follow-up. Of the 48 enrolled patients, 22 patients who underwent surgery within 8 h (group 8 h) and 20 patients who underwent surgery between 8 and 24 h (Group 8–24 h) after injury concluded the study. At admission, there was no statistically significant difference in AIS grade between the study groups. At the 6-month follow-up, an improvement of at least two AIS grades was found in 45.5% of patients in group 8 h and in 10% of patients in group 8–24 h (p=0.017). The median improvement in the ASIA motor score was 38.5 (10.0–61.0) motor points in group 8 h and 15.0 (8.8–34.0) motor points in group 8–24 h (p=0.0468). In a multivariate analysis, adjusted for the preoperative AIS grade and the degree of spinal canal compromise, the odds of an at least two-grade AIS improvement were at least 106% higher for patients in group 8 h than for patients in group 8–24 h (odds ratio=11.08, p=0.004). No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of perioperative complications, pneumonia, and the number of ventilator-dependent days or the mortality between the groups. Our results suggest that the patients with tSCI who undergo SD within 8 h after injury have superior neurological outcomes than patients who undergo SD 8–24 h after injury, without any increase in the rate of adverse effects.