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.

Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESThis study evaluated the long-term durability of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure in terms of functional improvement and pain reduction for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication due to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This is a report of 2-year follow-up for MILD study patients. METHODSThis prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study compared outcomes for 143 patients treated with MILD versus 131 treated with epidural steroid injections. Follow-up occurred at 6 months and at 1 year for the randomized phase and at 2 years for MILD subjects only. Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire were used to evaluate function and pain. Safety was evaluated by assessing incidence of device-/procedure-related adverse events. RESULTSAll outcome measures demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline through 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. At 2 years, Oswestry Disability Index improved by 22.7 points, Numeric Pain Rating Scale improved by 3.6 points, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire symptom severity and physical function domains improved by 1.0 and 0.8 points, respectively. There were no serious device-/procedure-related adverse events, and 1.3% experienced a device-/procedure-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONSMILD showed excellent long-term durability, and there was no evidence of spinal instability through 2-year follow-up. Reoperation and spinal fracture rates are lower, and safety is higher for MILD versus other lumbar spine interventions, including interspinous spacers, surgical decompression, and spinal fusion. Given the minimally invasive nature of this procedure, its robust success rate, and durability of outcomes, MILD is an excellent choice for first-line therapy for select patients with central spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication symptoms with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02093520.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the analgesic effects and safety of multidrug cocktail injections for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing lumbar microendoscopic decompression surgery. Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted with 70 patients who underwent lumbar microendoscopic decompression surgery between December 2023 and May 2024. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a multidrug cocktail injection (cocktail group, n = 35) or no cocktail injection (non-cocktail group, n = 35). Primary outcomes included scores of the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain from postoperative days 1 to 7 and the number of analgesics used within the first 3 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes included sex, age, body mass index, preoperative diagnosis, surgical levels, duration of surgery, blood loss, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on postoperative day 1, and drain output. Results The cocktail group experienced significantly lower pain levels from postoperative days 1 to 7 (p < 0.05) and used fewer analgesics within the first 3 days (p = 0.01) compared with the non-cocktail group. Additionally, the cocktail group had significantly lower CRP levels (p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed in the duration of surgery, blood loss, or drain output between the groups. Conclusion Multidrug cocktail injections are effective and safe for postoperative pain management in lumbar microendoscopic decompression surgery, significantly reducing pain, analgesic use, CRP levels, and hospital stay. These findings suggest that incorporating multidrug cocktail injections into postoperative care protocols can enhance patient recovery and outcomes.

The optimal management for acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is unknown. To determine whether early surgical decompression results in better motor recovery than delayed surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic incomplete cervical SCI associated with preexisting canal stenosis but without bone injury. This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 43 tertiary referral centers in Japan from December 2011 through November 2019. Patients aged 20 to 79 years with motor-incomplete cervical SCI with preexisting canal stenosis (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] Impairment Scale C; without fracture or dislocation) were included. Data were analyzed from September to November 2020. Patients were randomized to undergo surgical treatment within 24 hours after admission or delayed surgical treatment after at least 2 weeks of conservative treatment. The primary end points were improvement in the mean ASIA motor score, total score of the spinal cord independence measure, and the proportion of patients able to walk independently at 1 year after injury. Among 72 randomized patients, 70 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.4] years; age range, 41-79 years; 5 [7%] women and 65 [93%] men) were included in the full analysis population (37 patients assigned to early surgical treatment and 33 patients assigned to delayed surgical treatment). Of these, 56 patients (80%) had data available for at least 1 primary outcome at 1 year. There was no significant difference among primary end points for the early surgical treatment group compared with the delayed surgical treatment group (mean [SD] change in ASIA motor score, 53.7 [14.7] vs 48.5 [19.1]; difference, 5.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 14.5; P = .27; mean [SD] SCIM total score, 77.9 [22.7] vs 71.3 [27.3]; P = .34; able to walk independently, 21 of 30 patients [70.0%] vs 16 of 26 patients [61.5%]; P = .51). A mixed-design analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in the mean change in ASIA motor scores between the groups (F1,49 = 4.80; P = .03). The early surgical treatment group, compared with the delayed surgical treatment group, had greater motor scores than the delayed surgical treatment group at 2 weeks (mean [SD] score, 34.2 [18.8] vs 18.9 [20.9]), 3 months (mean [SD] score, 49.1 [15.1] vs 37.2 [20.9]), and 6 months (mean [SD] score, 51.5 [13.9] vs 41.3 [23.4]) after injury. Adverse events were common in both groups (eg, worsening of paralysis, 6 patients vs 6 patients; death, 3 patients vs 3 patients). These findings suggest that among patients with cervical SCI, early surgical treatment produced similar motor regain at 1 year after injury as delayed surgical treatment but showed accelerated recovery within the first 6 months. These exploratory results suggest that early surgical treatment leads to faster neurological recovery, which requires further validation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485458; umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000006780.

Despite being considered the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic cervical disc disease, anterior cervical decompression and fusion invariably accelerates adjacent segment degeneration. Cervical total disc replacement is a motion-preserving procedure developed as a substitute to fusion. Whether cervical total disc replacement is superior to fusion remains unclear. We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with the inclusion criteria to identify possible studies. The retrieved results were last updated on December 12, 2014. We classified the studies as short-term and midterm follow-up. Nineteen randomized controlled trials involving 4516 cases were identified. Compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, cervical total disc replacement had better functional outcomes (neck disability index [NDI], NDI success, neurological success, neck pain scores reported on a numerical rating scale [NRS], visual analog scales scores and overall success), greater segmental motion at the index level, fewer adverse events and fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index and adjacent levels in short-term follow-up (P < 0.05). With midterm follow-up, the cervical total disc replacement group indicated superiority in the NDI, neurological success, pain assessment (NRS), and secondary surgical procedures at the index level (P < 0.05). The Short Form 36 (SF-36) and segmental motion at the adjacent level in the short-term follow-up showed no significant difference between the two procedures, as did the secondary surgical procedure rates at the adjacent level with midterm follow-up (P > 0.05). Cervical total disc replacement presented favorable functional outcomes, fewer adverse events, and fewer secondary surgical procedures. The efficacy and safety of cervical total disc replacement are superior to those of fusion. Longer-term, multicenter studies are required for a better evaluation of the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess whether decompression alone is non-inferior to decompression with instrumented fusion five years after primary surgery in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.DesignFive year follow-up of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Nordsten-DS).Setting16 public orthopaedic and neurosurgical clinics in Norway.ParticipantsPatients aged 18-80 years with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and a spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or more at the stenotic level.InterventionsDecompression surgery alone and decompression with additional instrumented fusion (1:1).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a 30% or more reduction in Oswestry disability index from baseline to five year follow-up. The predefined non-inferiority margin was a −15 percentage point difference in the proportion of patients who met the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication questionnaire, numeric rating scale for leg and back pain, and EuroQol Group 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire.ResultsFrom 12 February 2014 to 18 December 2017, 267 participants were randomly assigned to decompression alone (n=134) and decompression with instrumented fusion (n=133). Of these, 230 (88%) responded to the five year questionnaire: 121 in the decompression group and 109 in the fusion group. Mean age at baseline was 66.2 years (SD 7.6), and 69% were women. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation of missing data, 84 (63%) of 133 people in the decompression alone group and 81 (63%) of 129 people in the fusion group had a at least a 30% reduction in Oswestry disability index, a difference of 0.4 percentage points. (95% confidence interval (CI) −11.2 to 11.9). The respective results of the per protocol analysis were 65 (65%) of 100 in the decompression alone group and 59 (66%) of 89 in the fusion group, a difference of −1.3 percentage points (95% CI −14.5 to 12.2). Both 95% CIs were higher than the predefined non-inferiority margin of −15%. The mean change in Oswestry disability index from baseline to five years was −17.8 in both groups (mean difference 0.02 (95% CI −3.8 to 3.9)). Results of the other secondary outcomes were in the same direction as the primary outcome. From two to five year follow-up, a new lumbar operation occurred in six (5%) of 123 people in the decompression group and 11 (10%) of 113 people in the fusion group, with a total from baseline to five years of 21 (16%) of 129 people and 23 (18%) of 125, respectively.ConclusionsIn participants with degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression alone was non-inferior to decompression with instrumented fusion five years after primary surgery. Proportions of subsequent surgeries at the index level or an adjacent lumbar level were no different between the groups.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02051374

Background: Extensive decompression with laminectomy, where appropriate, is often still described as the method of choice when operating on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Nonetheless, tissue-sparing procedures are becoming more common. Endoscopic techniques have become the standard in many areas because of the surgical advantages they offer and the benefits for rehabilitation. One key issue when operating on the spine was the development of instruments to provide sufficient bone resection under continuous visual control. This was achieved by using endoscopes for operations carried out in cases of spinal canal stenosis. Objective: This study of patients with degenerative lumbar central spinal stenosis compares the results of spinal decompression using the full-endoscopic interlaminar technique (FI) with a conventional microsurgical laminotomy technique (MI). Study Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. Settings: 135 patients with microsurgical or full-endoscopic decompression were followed up for 2 years. Alongside general and specific parameters, the following measuring instruments were also used for the investigation: Visual Analog Scale (VAS), German version of the North American Spine Society Instrument (NASS), Oswestry Low-Back-Pain-Disability Questionnaire (ODI). Results: Postoperatively 72 % of the patients no longer had leg pain or the pain was almost completely reduced and 21.2 % experienced occasional pain. The clinical results were the same in both groups. The rate of complications and revisions was significantly reduced in the FI Group. The full-endoscopic techniques brought advantages in the following areas: operation, complications, traumatization, rehabilitation. Limitations: Lack of placebo control group. Conclusions: The recorded results demonstrate that the full-endoscopic interlaminar bilateral decompression adopting a unilateral approach provides an adequate and safe supplement and alternative to the conventional microsurgical bilateral laminotomy technique when the indication criteria are fulfilled. At the same time, it offers the advantages of a minimally invasive intervention. Key words: Spinal stenosis, central stenosis, spinal decompression, endoscopic spinal decompression, minimally invasive spine surgery

IntroductionCurrent treatment modalities of lumbar spinal stenosis range from conservative medical management and physical therapy to open surgical decompression. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) and Superion interspinous spacers (SISS) Vertiflex offer the promise of effective pain relief with shorter recovery time and lesser potential complications compared with open surgical decompression procedures and general anesthesia. Despite their increasing utilization, their complication profile is not well established in the literature.MethodsWe searched the FDA’s Manufacturer and User facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for all entries on MILD product code ‘HRX’ and SISS product code ‘NQO’. MAUDE database was queried from 2010 to 2021. Duplicate entries were removed, and complications were classified based on the event descriptions.ResultsFor the MILD procedure, a total of 10 entries were found in the MAUDE database. Among these, 8 were classified as surgical complications and 2 were device related. On the other hand, a total of 919 reports were found in the MAUDE database for Vertiflex, with 385 medical device reports were included in the analysis. Device-related were the most reported complication, accounting for 189 cases.ConclusionAs with any new intervention, we must proceed with caution and evaluate the procedure performance over time. Such data should aid physicians to make informed decisions before choosing either technique for their patients. The findings from this study provide insight into the complication profile associated with both MILD and Vertiflex procedures, highlighting the need for continued evaluation and careful consideration in clinical decision-making.

Objective To test the equivalence for clinical effectiveness between microdecompression and laminectomy in patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis.Design Multicentre observational study.Setting Prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.Participants 885 patients with central stenosis of the lumbar spine who underwent surgery at 34 Norwegian orthopaedic or neurosurgical departments. Patients were treated from October 2006 to December 2011.Interventions Laminectomy and microdecompression.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index score one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D), perioperative complications, and duration of surgical procedures and hospital stays. A blinded biostatistician performed predefined statistical analyses in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts.Results The study was powered to detect a difference between the groups of eight points on the Oswestry disability index at one year. 721 patients (81%) completed the one year follow-up. Equivalence between microdecompression and laminectomy was shown for the Oswestry disability index (difference 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval −1.36 to 3.92, P<0.001 for equivalence). Equivalence was confirmed in the propensity matched cohort and full information regression analyses. No difference was found between groups in quality of life (EQ-5D) one year after surgery. The number of patients with complications was higher in the laminectomy group (15.0% v 9.8%, P=0.018), but after propensity matching for complications the groups did not differ (P=0.23). The duration of surgery for single level decompression was shorter in the microdecompression group (difference 11.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 17.5, P<0.001), but after propensity matching the groups did not differ (P=0.15). Patients in the microdecompression group had shorter hospital stays, both for single level decompression (difference 1.5 days, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, P<0.001) and two level decompression (0.8 days, 1.0 to 2.2, P=0.003).Conclusion At one year the effectiveness of microdecompression is equivalent to laminectomy in the surgical treatment of central stenosis of the lumbar spine. Favourable outcomes were observed at one year in both treatment groups.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02006901.