Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.
Extensive decompression with laminectomy where appropriate is often still described as the method of choice in surgery for lateral recess stenosis. Nonetheless, tissue-sparing procedures are becoming more common. Endoscopic techniques have become the standard in many areas because of the advantages they offer in surgical technique and in rehabilitation. Transforaminal and interlaminar access provide 2 full-endoscopic (FE) techniques for lumbar spine surgery. The goal of this prospective randomized controlled study was to compare the surgical results for the FE technique via the interlaminar approach with those of the conventional microsurgical technique in patients with degenerative lateral recess stenosis. ⋯ The clinical results of the FE interlaminar technique are equal to those of the microsurgical technique. At the same time, there are advantages in the operation technique, such as reduced traumatization. The FE interlaminar spinal decompression procedure is a sufficient and safe supplement and alternative to microsurgical procedures.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis.
The object of this study was to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a novel, minimally invasive spinal surgery technique to correct degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis involving a modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression. ⋯ This novel procedure provides effective spinal decompression. Although this method requires more operating time than a conventional method, it requires only minimal muscle trauma and spinal stability maintenance, and allows for early mobilization. This shortens the hospital stay, reduces postoperative back pain, and leads to satisfactory neurological and functional outcomes. Moreover, with the midline approach, decompression was accomplished without compromising the facet joints, even with a narrow width of lamina.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Intrathecal pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage in acute spinal cord injury: a prospective randomized trial.
Ischemia is an important factor in the pathophysiology of secondary damage after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and, in the setting of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, can be the primary cause of paralysis. Lowering the intrathecal pressure (ITP) by draining CSF is routinely done in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery but has not been evaluated in the setting of acute traumatic SCI. Additionally, while much attention is directed toward maintaining an adequate mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) in the acute postinjury phase, little is known about what is happening to the ITP during this period when spinal cord perfusion pressure (MABP - ITP) is important. The objectives of this study were to: 1) evaluate the safety and feasibility of draining CSF to lower ITP after acute traumatic SCI; 2) evaluate changes in ITP before and after surgical decompression; and 3) measure neurological recovery in relation to the drainage of CSF. ⋯ The insertion of lumbar intrathecal catheters and the drainage of CSF were not associated with significant adverse events, although the cohort was small and only a limited amount of CSF was drained. Intraoperative decompression of the spinal cord results in an increase in the ITP measured caudal to the injury site. Increases in intrathecal pressure are additionally observed in the postoperative period. These increases in intrathecal pressure result in reduced spinal cord perfusion that will otherwise go undetected when measuring only the MABP. Characteristic changes in the observed intrathecal pressure waveform occur after surgical decompression, reflecting the restoration of CSF flow across the SCI site. As such, the waveform pattern may be used intraoperatively to determine if adequate decompression of the thecal sac has been accomplished.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Effect of age on clinical and radiographic outcomes and adverse events following 1-level lumbar arthroplasty after a minimum 2-year follow-up.
Lumbar arthroplasty is approved in the US for the treatment of degenerative disc disease at 1 level in skeletally mature patients. However, a bias toward older patients (> 45 years of age) who are otherwise indicated for the procedure may exist. In this study, the clinical outcomes of patients from the Charité Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study were analyzed on the basis of patient age. ⋯ Although patients > 45 years of age may have comorbidities or contraindications for arthroplasty for a number of reasons, particularly osteopenia, this analysis demonstrates that patients who are indicated for 1-level arthroplasty experience similar clinical outcome, satisfaction, or adverse events compared with their younger counterparts.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty and arthrodesis: the effect of revision surgery in a controlled, multicenter, randomized study.
Patient selection is perhaps the most important factor in successful lumbar surgery. In this study, the authors analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption (IDE) trial who underwent revision surgery after primary total disc replacement with CHARITE or an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with placement of a BAK cage and iliac crest autograft. This revision surgery was either a supplemental posterior lumbar fixation or a 360 degrees fusion. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare clinical success in patients who underwent revision surgery with those who did not. ⋯ The 7.1% of patients who underwent a secondary stabilization procedure had poor clinical improvement. This finding may indicate that if the alternative treatment had been the initial treatment, these patients would not have benefited, and further implies a 7.1% rate of imprecision in preoperative evaluation.