European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
-
Review Meta Analysis
Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws.
A number of studies have shown increased accuracy of pedicle screw placement in spine with the help of computer-assisted navigation. The literature is lacking in regard to functional benefit derived from this technique. The aim of this systematic review was to look at the functional outcomes following computer-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine. ⋯ The comparison of neurological complications in two groups demonstrated an odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI 0.06, 1.14) in favour of using navigation for pedicle screw insertion (p = 0.07). Comparative trials demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of accuracy of navigation over conventional pedicle screw insertion with a relative risk of 1.12 (95% CI 1.09, 1.15) (p < 0.00001). Navigation does not show statistically significant benefit in reducing neurological complications and there was insufficient data in the literature to infer a conclusion in terms of fusion rate, pain relief and health outcome scores.
-
A classification of injuries is necessary in order to develop a common language for treatment indications and outcomes. Several classification systems have been proposed, the most frequently used is the Denis classification. The problem of this classification system is that it is based on an assumption, which is anatomically unidentifiable: the so-called middle column. ⋯ There is an increasing severity from A to C, and within each group, the severity usually increases within the subgroups from .1, .2, .3. All these pathomorphologies are supported by a mechanism of injury, which is responsible for the extent of the injury. The type of injury with its groups and subgroups is able to suggest the treatment modality.
-
This article reviews the basic principles of management of cervical trauma. The technique and critical importance of careful assessment is described. ⋯ Early reduction and stabilisation techniques are described, and the indications, and approach for surgery reviewed. The importance of the role of post-injury rehabilitation is identified.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Plasma disc decompression for contained cervical disc herniation: a randomized, controlled trial.
Prospective case series studies have shown that plasma disc decompression (PDD) using the COBLATION SpineWand device (ArthroCare Corporation, Austin, TX) is effective for decompressing the disc nucleus in symptomatic contained cervical disc herniations. This prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the clinical outcomes of percutaneous PDD as compared to conservative care (CC) through 1 year. Patients (n = 115) had neck/arm pain >50 on the visual analog scale (VAS) pain scale and had failed at least 30 days of failed CC. ⋯ CC: 8.86 + 8.04 vs. 4.24 +/- 3.79, P = 0.0004; 17.64 +/- 10.37 vs. 10.50 +/- 10.6, P = 0.0003, respectively). In patients who had neck/arm pain due to a contained cervical disc herniation, PDD was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes than a CC regimen. At 1 year, CC patients appeared to suffer a "relapse, showing signs of decline in most measurements, whereas PDD patients showed continued stable improvement.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy.
Existing studies on micro-endoscopic lumbar discectomy report similar outcomes to those of open and microdiscectomy and conflicting results on complications. We designed a randomised controlled trial to investigate the hypothesis of different outcomes and complications obtainable with the three techniques. 240 patients aged 18-65 years affected by posterior lumbar disc herniation and symptoms lasting over 6 weeks of conservative management were randomised to micro-endoscopic (group 1), micro (group 2) or open (group 3) discectomy. Exclusion criteria were less than 6 weeks of pain duration, cauda equina compromise, foraminal or extra-foraminal herniations, spinal stenosis, malignancy, previous spinal surgery, spinal deformity, concurrent infection and rheumatic disease. ⋯ Wound infections were similar in group 2 and 3, but did not affect patients in group 1. Overall costs were significantly higher in group 1 and lower in group 3. In conclusion, outcome measures are equivalent 2 years following lumbar discectomy with micro-endoscopy, microscopy or open technique, but severe complications are more likely and costs higher with micro-endoscopy.