Therapeutic Effect of Large Channel Endoscopic Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic decompression (PED) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that is now used for not only disc herniation but also lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, few studies have reported endoscopic surgery for LSS. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the outcomes and safety of large channel endoscopic decompression. Methods: Forty-one patients diagnosed with LSS who underwent PED surgery were included in the study. The estimated blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, reoperations, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and SF-36 physical-component summary scores were assessed. Preoperative and postoperative continuous data were compared through paired-samples t-tests. The significance level for all analyses was defined as p < 0.05. Results: A total of 41 consecutive patients underwent PED, including 21 (51.2%) males and 20 (48.8%) females. The VAS and ODI scores decreased from preoperatively to postoperatively, but the JOA and SF-36 physical component summary scores significantly increased. The VAS (lumbar) score decreased from 5.05 ± 2.33 to 0.45 ± 0.71 (P = 0.000); the VAS (leg) score decreased from 5.51 ± 2.82 to 0.53 ± 0.72 (P = 0.000); the ODI score decreased from 52.80 ± 20.41 to 4.84 ± 3.98 (P = 0.000), and the JOA score increased from 11.73 ± 4.99 to 25.32 ± 2.12 (P = 0.000). Only 1 patient experienced an intraoperative complication (2.4%; dural tear), and 1 patient required reoperation (2.4%). Conclusions: Surgical treatment for LSS is to sufficiently decompress and minimize the trauma and complications caused by surgery. This study did not reveal any obvious shortcomings of PED and suggested PED is a safe and effective treatment for LSS.

Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Conventional paired meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results regarding the safety and efficacy of different interventions. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacies of different interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites from inception to October 10, 2019, for randomized controlled trials comparing the nine most commonly used interventions for LSS. The main outcomes were disability and pain intensity. The PROSPERO number was CRD42020154247. RESULTS: First, laminotomy was better in improving patients' short- and long-term dysfunction (probability 49% and 25%, respectively). Second, decompression, decompression plus fusion, endoscopic decompression, interspinous process spacer device implantation, laminectomy, laminotomy and minimally invasive decompression were significantly more efficacious in relieving pain than non-surgical interventions (mean difference in the short-term -21.82, -22.00, -16.68, -17.47, -17.75, -17.61 and -18.86; in the long-term -37.14, -34.04, -34.07, -39.79, -36.14, -32.75 and -39.14, respectively). Third, endoscopic decompression had a lower complication rate (probability 51%). In addition, laminotomy had a lower reoperation rate (probability 45%). Fourth, decompression plus fusion resulted in more blood loss than any other surgical intervention (probability 96%). Finally, endoscopic decompression had the shortest hospitalization time (probability 96%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences among the different interventions in improving patient function. Surgical interventions were associated with better pain relief but a higher incidence of complications. Decompression plus fusion is not necessary for patients. In addition, endoscopic decompression as a novel and less invasive surgical approach may be a good choice for LSS patients.

Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: Protocol for a network meta-analysis and systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is caused by structural changes of the spine, which lead to several severe symptoms, including back pain, leg pain, numbness and tingling in the legs, as well as reduced physical function. However, there is little evidence suggesting whether a patient with LSS should be treated with surgery. If surgery is recommended, which type of surgery benefits the patient most? To answer these questions, we will conduct a network meta-analysis and a systematic review to compare surgical and nonsurgical interventions in terms of efficacy as well as safety in adult patients with LSS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases for articles published prior to October 10, 2019. We will search for randomized controlled trials assessing surgical and nonsurgical interventions for adult patients with degenerative LSS without any language restrictions. The primary outcome measures will be pain and disability. The secondary outcomes will include adverse events (number of events or number of people with each type of adverse event), reoperations, complications, blood loss and operation time. We will obtain the full texts of the potentially relevant studies and independently assess them. The quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. A random-effects network meta-analysis will be performed to analyze all the evidence under the frequentist framework, and the ranking results will be presented. We will generate plots depicting the network geometry using Stata. The network meta-analysis will be performed according to the Bayesian framework. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Basigin-2 upregulated by receptor activator of NF-κB ligand enhances lung cancer-induced osteolytic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer bone metastasis causes poor prognosis. Basigin-2, a novel cancer-associated biomarker, is upregulated in lung cancer and has been linked with tumor progression. But little is known about the role of basigin-2 in lung cancer bone metastasis and osteolytic lesion. METHODS: Basigin-2 expression was evaluated in biopsy tissue specimens of 20 lung cancer patients with bone metastases via immunohistochemistry. Invasion assay and MTT proliferation assay were performed to test the invasion and proliferation of lung cancer cell after modulated basigin-2 expression. The osteoclastic activity of basigin-2 was detected in tibia cancer model by injected of lung cancer cells. The regulation role of receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL) on basigin-2 and its downstream molecules were measured by real-time quantitative RT-PCR, gelatin zymography and western blot analysis. RESULTS: We found that basigin-2 was highly expressed in lung cancer bone metastases. Then, we demonstrated that basigin-2 could promote lung cancer cells invasion, metastasis and proliferation through upregulating metalloproteinases-2 (MMP-2), MMP-9 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression. The lung cancer cells overexpressing basigin-2 strongly induced the osteolytic lesions in immunodeficient mice, which were reduced by treatment with basigin-2 blocking antibody. Furthermore, we explored the enhanced basigin-2 molecular mechanism in lung cancer bone metastasis. Our results indicated the RANKL, pivotal for the control of bone resorption, could increase basigin-2 and its downstream molecules MMP-2, MMP-9 and VEGF expression in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: Basigin-2 upregulated by RANKL induces MMPs and VEGF, which may increase lung cancer cell metastasis ability and support osteoclastic activity. Thus, our data suggest important roles for basigin-2 in lung cancer-induced osteolytic lesion and implicate this protein potential application as a target for lung cancer bone metastasis therapy.