Endoscope-Assisted Revision Surgery after Lumbar Fusion with Pedicle Screw Fixation: A Case Series and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar internal fixation and fusion can be subject to failure requiring revision surgery. Endoscopic revision surgery with minimal invasiveness may be a helpful therapeutic intervention in the management of certain fusion-related complications. According to the author's knowledge, there are few references to this technique in English literature. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of endoscope-assisted revision surgery in patients with recurrent radiculopathy after lumbar fusion surgery, discuss the necessity of revision surgery, and review the relevant literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We report a case series and review relevant literature. Information was gathered from the electronic medical record in our hospital. A total of 231 patients who underwent endoscopic spine procedures from January 2021 to October 2022 were reviewed. Three patients who underwent endoscopic decompressive procedures after lumbar fusion surgeries at a correspondence segment were identified, and the clinical courses and radiological findings of these patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: The average interval from initial to revision surgery was 30.74 (range 10.50-48.00) months. The patients include one man and two women with an average age of 75.67 (range 68-81) years at the initial operation. Three patients developed symptoms of recurrent myelopathy after their initial surgery due to canal stenosis in the fusion segment and hyperostosis. All patients experienced symptom relief after revision surgery. At a mean follow-up time of 0.96 months, endoscopic decompression resulted in the average numerical rating scale (NRS) score for lower limb pain on the symptomatic side being reduced by 2.67. Patients rated their leg pain on average as 4.5 ± 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscope-assisted revision surgery after lumbar fusion with pedicle screw fixation is a promising therapeutic strategy in treating recurrent radiculopathy. Spinal stenosis and hyperostosis are two of the most significant reasons for revision surgery. Resection of intraspinal lesions and endoscopic foraminal decompression appear to have promising outcomes. Certain fusion-related complications may be effectively treated with endoscope-assisted revision surgery. Further research should be conducted to investigate the clinical efficacy of revision surgery.

Comparison of anterior spinal fusion and posterior cervical foraminotomy for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy in terms of postoperative recovery of upper-limb motor deficits.

This study compared postoperative motor recovery between anterior spinal fusion (ASF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) who had motor deficits. From a database maintained by surgeons across 27 institutions, 227 patients undergoing primary ASF or PCF for CSR without myelopathy were evaluated. Among these, 106 patients with upper-limb motor deficits (manual muscle testing [MMT] grade 0-3) were observed for at least 12 months post-surgery. Data on preoperative and postoperative MMT grades were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and at the final follow-up. The recovery of motor function was compared between the ASF and PCF groups using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. While the overall excellent recovery rates (MMT grade ≥ 2) at the final follow-up were similar between the ASF and PCF group (74 % vs. 86 %, p = 0.15), the PCF group showed significantly faster motor recovery at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, with recovery rates of 43 %, 63 %, and 82 %, respectively, compared to 18 %, 46 %, and 54 % in the ASF group (HR = 1.62, p = 0.031). These findings suggest that PCF may offer a quicker recovery of motor function and could be a more suitable surgical procedure than ASF for patients with CSR and motor deficits.

Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic and full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of the full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FE-PCF) and the unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). METHODS: Patients who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgical method, the patients were divided into two groups: FE-PCF group and UBE-PCF group. Perioperative data included operation time, Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay were collected. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-arm, VAS-neck, and Neck Diability Index (NDI) was used to evaluate the clinical outcomes at preoperative, postoperative 1 week and Last follow-up. Serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were recorded to evaluate surgical invasiveness. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were included, including 89 cases of FE-PCF and 71 cases of UBE-PCF. The demographic and preoperative data showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean operating time was significantly shorter in the UBE-PCF group compared to FE-PCF group (P < 0.05). Serum CRP and CPK levels of the two groups both exhibited a pattern of rising and then falling, peaking one day following surgery and decreasing to near normal values three days after the operation. Compared with preoperative, both groups showed significant improvement in postoperative VAS and NDI scores, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). However, the differences in results between the groups were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both UBE-PCF and FE-PCF are secure and efficient methods for treating CSR by continuous visualization. UBE-PCF offers predictable and adequate decompression within a reduced surgical duration, facilitated by its separate observation and operation channels.

Preoperative Factors on Loss of Range of Motion after Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy.

Background and Objectives: Posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) aims to resolve cervical radiculopathy while preserving range of motion (ROM). However, its effectiveness in maintaining ROM is uncertain. This study investigates the changes in ROM after PCF and identifies preoperative factors that influence ROM reduction post surgery. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients treated at our hospital from August 2016 to September 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain and the neck disability index (NDI). Radiological outcomes included the segmental angle (SA), cervical angle (CA), C2-C7 SVA, Pfirrmann grade, extent of facetectomy, foraminal stenosis, and ROM. Patients were categorized into two groups based on segmental ROM changes: decreased (Group D) and maintained (Group M). Radiological and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for ROM loss after PCF. Results: 76 patients were included: 34 in Group D and 42 in Group M, with no demographic differences. Preoperatively, Group D had significantly larger flexion segmental and cervical angles than Group M (segmental, p < 0.001; cervical, p = 0.001). Group D also had a higher Pfirrmann grade (p = 0.014) and more bony bridge formations (p = 0.004). While no significant differences were observed in arm pain VAS and NDI scores, Group D exhibited worse neck pain VAS at the last follow-up (p = 0.03). Univariate linear regression indicated that preoperative segmental ROM (p < 0.001, B = 0.82) and bony bridge formation (p = 0.046, B = 5.33) were significant predictors of ROM loss post PCF. Conclusions: Patients with higher preoperative flexion angles and Pfirrmann grades at the operative level are at an increased risk for ROM loss and neck pain and often exhibit bony bridge formation. Accounting for these factors can improve surgical planning and patient outcomes.

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus the anterior transcorporeal approach for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical decompression is often indicated for symptomatic cases of cervical radiculopathy. In the cervical spine, minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) and the anterior transcorporeal approach (ATCA) are modern techniques available to surgeons. This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis aimed to assess surgical and patient-reported outcomes of MIS-PCF and ATCA for cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using 1) Ovid; 2) Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and 3) Scopus databases, which reported outcomes following cervical decompression using MIS-PCF or the ATCA. Specifically, baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, and changes in visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score were assessed. The quality of the studies was graded using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS: Forty studies with 1661 patients were identified. The comparative analysis of both techniques revealed no significant differences in complication (7%, 95% CI 5%-10%, p = 0.75) or reoperation rates (5%, 95% CI 3%-7%, p = 0.41). Additionally, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss (55.39, 95% CI 44.62-66.16 ml, p = 0.55) or operative time (85.15, 95% CI 65.38-104.92 minutes, p = 0.05). The ATCA showed significantly greater improvement (p < 0.01) in VAS neck pain scores following surgery (ATCA point reduction 6.7, 95% CI 6.0-7.5 points vs MIS-PCF 3.0, 95% CI 1.0-5.0 points). CONCLUSIONS: The ATCA and MIS-PCF are effective modern techniques for the surgical treatment of radiculopathy. Both approaches showed comparable postoperative outcomes, including complication and reoperation rates. However, the ATCA was shown to provide significantly greater improvement in VAS neck pain scores.

Endoscopic Posterior Approach for Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy Using Tubular Retractor: Our Experience, Surgical Technique, and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic posterior approach can effectively decompress cervical root and cord secondary to posterior compression. We present our experience in 229 patients using tubular retractor, and the relevant literature is reviewed. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of multilevel myelopathy and or radiculopathy was performed. Indications for posterior approach was primary posterior compressions at cord and or root. Combined compression from posterior side and mild to moderate anterior pressure with acceptable lordosis were also decompressed. Bilateral cord decompression and foraminotomy for radiculopathy was performed using tubular retractor. RESULT: Myelopathy and radiculopathy were present in 220 and 9 patients, respectively. A total of 53 foraminotomy procedures were performed in 36 patients. All patients showed improvement, with the mean preoperative Nurick grade decreasing from 2.72 ± 0.799 to 0.78 ± 0.911 after surgery. There was significant improvement in postoperative Nurick grades compared with preoperative grades (Z-value = 13.306, P < 0.0001). Operative results were better in patients with good preoperative Nurick grades (grades 1 and 2) compared with those with poorer grades (grades 3 and 4). Minor bleeding, small dural tear, and root injury were observed in 42, 4, and 8 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic approach was effective and safe for root and cord decompression. This study was limited by its single-center, retrospective design, exclusion of some eligible patients, a short postoperative Nurick grade assessment period of 6 months, and absence of a comprehensive long-term postoperative biomechanical assessment. To validate these results, a prospective multicenter study addressing these limitations is needed.

Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Neck Pain in Patients with Cervical Spondylosis: Pooled Results of Three Prospective Cohort Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, there is a lack of large-scale prospective cohort data to explore the response of neck pain to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients with neck pain can achieve consistent neck pain relief following ACDF regardless of preoperative neurological symptoms and number of surgical segments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a pooled analysis of 3 multicenter prospective cohort studies. Patients with cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy with significant neck pain (visual analog scale [VAS] ≥ 4) who underwent ACDF were included. Neck pain VAS scores (VAS-neck) were collected at preoperative and postoperative follow-up time points (3 months, 6 months, and 1 year). Subgroup analyses were conducted for patients with radiculopathy, myelopathy, or myeloradiculopathy, as well as for single- versus multi-segment ACDF. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were confirmed. Patients showed significant improvement in VAS-neck at all follow-up time points compared with baseline (P < 0.001 for each). In the first year after surgery, VAS-neck were reduced by 3.3 points (57.0%) on average, and the rates of achieving minimum clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state were 72.2% and 73.8%, respectively. Meanwhile, one year after surgery, there was no significant difference in ΔVAS-neck, recovery rate, minimum clinically important difference, and patient acceptable symptom state attainment rate between the radiculopathy, myelopathy and myeloradiculopathy groups, and the same trend was observed between the single-segment and multi-segment groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that ACDF significantly improved neck pain in patients with cervical spondylosis, regardless of preoperative neurological symptoms and number of surgical segments.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications of biportal and uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopy (PE) in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted up to April 2024 across multiple databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data, focusing on clinical studies that compare UBE with PE for posterior foraminotomy and discectomy decompression in CSR. The meta-analysis was performed with an emphasis on evaluating clinical outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, incision length, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain and arm pain, and complications. RESULTS: Out of an initial 1,041 studies identified from electronic databases, eight were deemed eligible based on title, abstract, and full-text screening. These studies involved 552 patients (269 males, 283 females; mean age: 53.9±11.4 years; range, 30 to 79 years), with 287 in the UBE group and 265 in the PE group. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in operation time between UBE and PE (mean difference [MD]=-3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]:-19.38, 12.02; p=0.65). However, both blood loss (MD=17.01; 95% CI: 2.61, 31.41; p=0.02) and incision length (MD=11.62; 95% CI: 9.23, 14.01; p<0.00001) were significantly lower in the PE group compared to the UBE group. Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of NDI (MD=0.12; 95% CI:-0.10, 0.34; 0.28), VAS for neck pain (MD=-0.06; 95% CI:-0.19, 0.06; p=0.32), VAS for arm pain (MD=-0.14; 95% CI:-0.26, -0.01; p=0.84), or complications (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.54, 2.10; p=0.85). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there are no significant disparities in clinical outcomes between UBE and PE, encompassing NDI, VAS for arm pain, and VAS for neck pain, as well as complication rates. Notably, compared to PE, UBE results in increased bleeding and longer incision lengths when treating CSR, without substantially reducing operation time.

Vascular loops mimicking herniated lumbar discs: fair warning.

The authors report their experience with twenty-one consecutive patients who presented with symptoms and imaging characteristics of a herniated lumbar disc; of whom, at the time of surgery had a vascular loop instead. The procedure was performed on 14 women and seven men with a mean age of 39 years. Clinical complaints included lumbar aching with one limb overt radiculopathy in all patients; with additional sphincter dysfunction in two cases. Symptoms had developed within a mean period of three months. In all patients, the disc was exposed through an L5-S1 (n = 10); L4-L5 (n = 5) and L3-L4 (n = 6) open minimal laminotomy. In 16 patients, rather than a herniated disc they had a lumbar epidural varix, while an arterio-venous fistula was found in the remaining five cases. In all cases, the vascular disorder was resected and its subjacent disc was left intact. One patient had a postoperative blood transfusion. While the radiculopathy dysfunction improved in all patients, four patients reported lasting lumbar pain following surgery. The postoperative imaging confirmed the resolution of the vascular anomaly and an intact disc. The mean length of the follow-up period was 47 months. Either epidural varix or arterio-venous fistula in the lumbar area may mimic a herniated disc on imaging studies. With the usual technique they can be operated safely. Resection of the anomaly can be sufficient for alleviating radiculopathy symptoms.

Comparison of surgical outcomes for cervical radiculopathy by nerve root level.

Cervical radiculopathy might affect finger movement and dexterity. Postoperative features and clinical outcomes comparing C8 radiculopathies with other radiculopathies are unknown. This prospective multicenter study analyzed 359 patients undergoing single-level surgery for pure cervical radiculopathy (C5, 48; C6, 132; C7, 149; C8, 30). Background data and pre- and 1-year postoperative neck disability index (NDI) and numerical rating scale (NRS) scores were collected. The C5-7 and C8 radiculopathy groups were compared after propensity score matching, with clinical significance determined by minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Postoperative arm numbness was significantly higher than upper back or neck numbness, and arm pain was reduced the most (3.4 points) after surgery among the C5-8 radiculopathy groups. The C8 radiculopathy group had worse postoperative NDI scores (p = 0.026), upper back pain (p = 0.042), change in arm pain NRS scores (p = 0.021), and upper back numbness (p = 0.028) than the C5-7 group. NDI achieved MCID in both groups, but neck and arm pain NRS did not achieve MCID in the C8 group. In conclusion, although arm numbness persisted, arm pain was relieved after surgery for cervical radiculopathy. Patients with C8 radiculopathy exhibited worse NDI and change in NRS arm pain score than those with C5-7 radiculopathy.

A functional intervention within a cognitive approach to chronic cervical radiculopathy : Description of the non-surgical treatment arm in a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with cervical radiculopathy improve within the first months without treatment or with non-surgical treatment. A systematic review concluded that these patients improve, regardless of their intervention. Still, many patients are offered surgery, despite limited evidence regarding the indications for surgical treatments. The aim of this article is to describe the intervention that is going to be followed in the non-surgical treatment arm of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: The non-surgical intervention is a functional intervention within a cognitive approach founded on previous experiences, and current recommendations for best practice care of musculoskeletal pain and cervical radiculopathy. It is based on the biopsychosocial rather than a biomedical perspective, comprises an interdisciplinary approach (physicians, physiotherapy specialists), and includes brief intervention and graded activities. The intervention consists of 6 sessions over 12 weeks. The primary goals are first, to validate the patients´ symptoms and build a therapeutic alliance, second, to explore the understanding and promote alternatives, and third, to explore problems and opportunities based on patients´ symptoms and function. Motivational factors toward self-management are challenging. We will attempt shared decision-making in planning progress for the individual patient and emphasise learning of practical self-help strategies and encouragement to stay active (reinforcing the positive natural course). General physical activities such as walking will be promoted along with simple functional exercises for the neck- and shoulder region. We will also explore social activity, comorbidities, pain location, sleep, and work-related factors. The health providers will set individualised goals together with each patient. DISCUSSION: The aim of the intervention is to describe a functional intervention within a cognitive approach for patients with chronic cervical radiculopathy. The effectiveness of the present program will be compared to surgery in a randomised controlled trial.

Outcomes of non-contiguous two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Non-contiguous two-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) may be a viable option for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy and imaging-evident spine and radicular compression at two non-contiguous cervical levels. The risk of hastening degeneration and triggering Adjacent Segment Disease at the spine levels located between the fused levels is a putative adverse event, which was assessed in a few studies. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing non-contiguous two levels ACDF and to assess biomechanical modifications at non-fused segments. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with noncontiguous two-level spine and radicular compression, who underwent simultaneous noncontiguous two-level ACDF at our center. We analyzed clinical and radiological outcomes and investigated the rate of adjacent segment disease. Radiographic parameters were calculated on pre- and postoperative images. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients underwent simultaneous noncontiguous two-level ACDF for cervical myelo-radiculopathy between 2015 and 2021 and were followed up for a mean period of 43.3 months. For all patients, the mJOA score significantly improved from 14.57 ± 2.3 to 16.5 ± 2.1 (p<0.01) and the NDI score significantly decreased from 21.45 ± 4.3 to 12.8 ± 2.3 (p<0.01) postoperatively. Cervical lordosis increased after surgery (from 9.65° ±9.47 to 15.12° ± 6.09); intermediate disc height decreased (5.68 mm ± 0.57 to 5.27 mm ±0.98); the ROMs of intermediate (from 12.45 ± 2.33 to 14.77 ± 1.98), cranial (from 14.63 ± 1.59 to 15.71 ± 1.02), and caudal (from 11.58 ± 2.32 to 13.33 ± 2.67) segments slightly increased. During follow-up assessment, in one patient the myelopathy worsened due to spine compression at the intermediate level. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous and non-contiguous two-level ACDF is a safe and effective procedure. The occurrence of postoperative adjacent and intermediate segment disease is rare.

The strategic use of Big Data - A study protocol for a multicenter clinical trial testing if the use of the Swespine Dialogue Support alter outcomes in degenerative spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients surgically treated for lumbar spinal stenosis or cervical radiculopathy report improvement in approximately two out of three cases. Advancements in Machine Learning and the utility of large datasets have enabled the development of prognostic prediction models within spine surgery. This trial investigates if the use of the postoperative outcome prediction model, the Dialogue Support, can alter patient-reported outcome and satisfaction compared to current practice. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter clinical trial. Patients referred to a spine clinic with cervical radiculopathy or lumbar spinal stenosis will be screened for eligibility. Participants will be assessed at baseline upon recruitment and at 12 months follow-up. The Dialogue Support will be used on all participants, and they will thereafter be placed into either a surgical or a non-surgical treatment arm, depending on the decision made between patient and surgeon. The surgical treatment group will be studied separately based on diagnosis of either cervical radiculopathy or lumbar spinal stenosis. Both the surgical and the non-surgical group will be compared to a retrospective matched control group retrieved from the Swespine register, on which the Dialogue Support has not been used. The primary outcome measure is global assessment regarding leg/arm pain in the surgical treatment group. Secondary outcome measures include patient satisfaction, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for pain. In the non-surgical treatment group primary outcome measures are EQ-5D and mortality, as part of a selection bias analysis. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study may provide evidence on whether the use of an advanced digital decision tool can alter patient-reported outcomes after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on April 17th, 2023, NCT05817747. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1. TRIAL DESIGN: Clinical multicenter trial.

Comparison of biportal endoscopic and microscopic tubular paraspinal approach for foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation.

OBJECTIVE: Foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation (FELDH) is an important pathological condition that can lead to lumbar radiculopathy. The paraspinal muscle-splitting approach introduced by Reulen and Wiltse is a reasonable surgical technique. Minimally invasive procedures using a tubular retractor system have also been introduced. However, surgical treatment is considered more challenging for FELDH than for central or subarticular lumbar disc herniations (LDHs). Some researchers have proposed uniportal extraforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy through a posterolateral approach as an alternative for FELDH, but heterogeneous clinical results have been reported. Recently, the biportal endoscopic (BE) paraspinal approach has been suggested as an alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of BE and microscopic tubular (MT) paraspinal approaches for decompressive foraminotomy and lumbar discectomy (paraLD) in patients with FELDH. METHODS: Ninety-one consecutive patients with unilateral lumbar radiculopathy and FELDH underwent paraLD. Demographic and perioperative data were collected. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for spinal disability, and the modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Postoperative complications and reoperation rates were also evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 76 patients were included in the final analysis. Among them, 43 underwent BE paraLD (group A) and the remaining 33 underwent MT paraLD (group B). The demographic and preoperative data were not statistically different between the groups. All patients showed significant improvements in VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI scores compared with baseline values (p < 0.05). The improvement in VAS back scores was significantly better in group A than in group B on postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). However, all clinical parameters were comparable between the two groups after postoperative year 1 (p > 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 86.1% and 72.7% of the patients had excellent or good outcomes in groups A and B, respectively. No intergroup differences were observed (p = 0.367). In addition, there were no differences in the total operation time or amount of surgical drainage. Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.301); however, reoperation rates were significantly higher in group B (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: BE paraLD is an effective treatment for FELDH and is an alternative to MT paraLD. In particular, BE paraLD has advantages of early improvement in postoperative back pain and low reoperation rates.

Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Compared with Anterior Cervical Discectomy with Fusion for Cervical Radiculopathy: Two-Year Results of the FACET Randomized Noninferiority Study.

BACKGROUND: Posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) is a valid alternative to anterior discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) as a surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy, but the quality of evidence has been limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of these treatments after 2 years of follow-up. We hypothesized that posterior surgery would be noninferior to anterior surgery. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial assessed patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy in 9 Dutch hospitals with a follow-up duration of 2 years. The primary outcomes measured reduction of cervical radicular pain and were the success ratio based on the Odom criteria, and arm pain and decrease in arm pain, evaluated with the visual analog scale, with a 10% noninferiority margin, which represents the maximum acceptable difference between the new treatment (posterior surgery) and the standard treatment (anterior surgery), beyond which the new treatment would be considered clinically unacceptable. The secondary outcomes were neck pain, Neck Disability Index, Work Ability Index, quality of life, complications (including reoperations), and treatment satisfaction. Generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used for analyses. The study was registered at the Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON), formerly the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5536). RESULTS: From January 2016 to May 2020, 265 patients were randomized (132 to the posterior surgery group and 133 to the anterior surgery group). Among these, 25 did not have the allocated intervention; 11 of these 25 patients had symptom improvement, and the rest of the patients did not have the intervention due to various reasons. At the 2-year follow-up, of 243 patients, primary outcome data were available for 236 patients (97%). Predicted proportions of a successful outcome were 0.81 after posterior surgery and 0.74 after anterior surgery (difference in rate, -0.06 [1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.02]), indicating the noninferiority of posterior surgery. The between-group difference in arm pain was -2.7 (1-sided 95% CI, 7.4) and the between-group difference in the decrease in arm pain was 1.5 (1-sided 95% CI, 8.2), both confirming the noninferiority of posterior surgery. The secondary outcomes demonstrated small between-group differences. Serious surgery-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients (8%) who underwent posterior surgery, including 9 reoperations, and 11 patients (9%) who underwent anterior surgery, including 7 reoperations (difference in reoperation rate, -0.02 [2-sided 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrated that, after a 2-year follow-up, posterior surgery was noninferior to anterior surgery with regard to the success rate and arm pain reduction in patients with cervical radiculopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of patients with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy (SLUCR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with SLUCR in two hospitals from February 2020 to February 2022, including the MI-PCF group (n=40) and the ACDF group (n=41). The differences in neck and shoulder pain, visual analog score (VAS), upper limb radiating pain (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) were compared. Operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, and complications were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The degree of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 day postoperatively was better in the ACDF group than in the MI-PCF group (p<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the relief of upper limb radiating pain and the decrease of NDI scores between the two groups at 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (p>0.05). The patients in MI-PCF group had shorter operative time, less bleeding, and shorter hospital stay, which were statistically different (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the complication rate between the two groups, (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical efficacy and safety of MI-PCF and ACDF in the treatment of SLUCR are satisfactory, meanwhile, MI-PCF has shorter operative time, less bleeding and shorter hospital stay than ACDF, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Incidence and predictive factors of double crush syndrome in patients undergoing cervical surgery: a database study.

BACKGROUND: Double crush syndrome (DCS) is characterized by multiple compression sites along a single peripheral nerve. It commonly presents with persistent distal symptoms despite surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy. Management typically involves nerve release of the most symptomatic site. However, due to overlapping symptoms with cervical radiculopathy, patients may undergo cervical surgery prior to DCS diagnosis. Due to its rarity and frequent misdiagnosis, the authors aim to utilize a large national database to investigate the incidence and associations of DCS. METHODS: The Pearldiver database was utilized to identify patients undergoing cervical surgery for the management of cervical radiculopathy. Patients were stratified into three cohorts based on their clinical course before and after cervical surgery. The primary outcome was the prevalence of DCS, and secondary outcomes included an evaluation of predictive factors for each Group, using a significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: Among 195,271 patients undergoing cervical surgery for cervical radiculomyelopathy, 97.95% were appropriately managed, 1.42% had potentially mids-diagnosed DCS, and 0.63% were treatment-resistant. Diabetes and obesity were significant predictors of potentially misdiagnosed DCS (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study presents data indicating that 1.42% of patients who receive cervical surgery may have underlying DCS and potentially benefit from nerve release prior to undergoing surgery. A concurrent diagnosis of diabetes and obesity may predict an underlying DCS.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion for unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylosis (CS), including myelopathy and radiculopathy, is the most common degenerative cervical spine disease. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) compared to those of conventional anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for treating unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial was conducted. The sample consisted of 131 patients who underwent UBE or ACDF was conducted between September 2021 and September 2022. Patients with cervical nerve roots or coexisting spinal cord compression symptoms and imaging-defined unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs were randomized into two groups: a UBE group (n = 63) and an ACDF group (n = 68). The operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay after surgery, and perioperative complications were recorded. Preoperative and postoperative modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, neck disability index (NDI) scores, and recovery rate (RR) of the mJOA were utilized to evaluate clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in patients treated with UBE than in those treated with ACDF (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the neck or arm VAS score, NDI score, mJOA score, or mean RR of the mJOA between the two groups (p < 0.05). Only mild complications were observed in both groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: UBE can significantly relieve pain and disability without severe complications, and most patients are satisfied with this technique. Consequently, this procedure can be used safely and effectively as an alternative to ACDF for treating unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 02/08/2023 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn , #ChiCTR2300074273).

Navigated Exoscopic Transtubular Approach for Lumbar Decompression: Surgical Video.

Tubular retractors in minimally invasive lumbar stenosis permit surgeons to achieve satisfactory neural decompression while minimizing the morbidity of the surgical access.1-3 Transtubular lumbar decompression requires intraoperative image guidance and microscopic magnification to achieve precise and reproductible surgical results. Use of 2-dimensional image guidance in transtubular lumbar decompression has a major limitation due to the lack of multiplanar orientation. Consequently, there is a risk of incomplete decompression and excessive bone removal resulting in iatrogenic instability. Furthermore, available microscopes have limited optics (short focal lengths) and unsatisfactory surgeon ergonomics. To overcome these limitations, the authors present a step-by-step video of the navigated exoscopic transtubular approach (NETA) for spinal canal decompression (Video 1). The patient suffers from bilateral L5 radiculopathy due to L4-L5 bilateral synovial cysts responsible for severe L4-L5 canal stenosis. During the entire surgical procedure, NETA implements the use of navigation based on intraoperative 3-dimensional (3D) fluoroscopic images for retractor placement, bone mapping, and neural decompression.4 NETA represents a modification of the "standard" MIS transtubular technique for bilateral lumbar decompression. NETA is based on the use of neuronavigation during each surgical step to guide the placement of tubular retractor. This tailors the bone resection to achieve adequate neural decompression while minimizing the risks of potential spine instability. After precise placement of the tubular retractor, bone removal and neural decompression are accomplished under robotic exoscope magnification with 4k 3D images. Using a 3D robotic exoscope (Modus V, Synaptive, Toronto, Canada) allows better tissue magnification and improves surgeon ergonomics during lumbar decompression through tubular retractors.5,6.

Foot pressure transfers are altered in lumbar radiculopathy but reversible after surgery: a prospective, pedobarography study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients with lower lumbar stenosis and disc herniation report disability in standing and ambulation, despite normal neurological examination. The L5 and S1 nerve roots support the entire motor and sensory function of the foot, and their radiculopathy can affect foot loading during standing and walking. This has not been quantified before. PURPOSE: To quantify alterations in static and dynamic foot pressure transfers in patients with lower lumbar nerve root compression, and document any beneficial effects of surgical decompression. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, case-control study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Cases-Patients with unilateral radiculopathy (L5/S1) with normal neurology (n=50); Controls - Healthy volunteers (n=50). METHODS: The volunteers and patients underwent pedobarographic analysis during standing (static) and walking (dynamic), and fifteen (12 dynamic and three static) parameters were documented. The patient's preoperative values were compared with that of the healthy volunteers. All the 50 patients underwent surgical decompression, and clinical outcome measures (VAS/ODI at 3 months) were documented. Pedobarographic analysis was repeated in the postoperative period (48 hours) and 3-month follow-up and compared with the preoperative scores. RESULTS: In healthy controls, the mean values of all 15 parameters were comparable between the right and the left side (p>.05). When compared to controls, the patients had significantly lower maximum foot loads (p=.01) and average foot loads (p=.05) on the affected side during walking indicating lesser load transmission, in the preoperative period. Within the affected foot, the load transfer was higher on the first metatarsal/ medial arch while significantly less on the lateral metatarsals (p=.04). The percentage load on whole foot and forefoot was significantly less on standing (p=.01). Significant improvements were noted in the postoperative period, especially in the maximum foot surface area (p=.01), maximum and average foot loads, and improved weight transfers on lateral arch and forefoot (p=.02). The load on whole foot increased significantly from 46.1%±5.5% (preoperative) to 48.1%±5.5% (postoperative) and 49.9%±3.3% at follow-up (p=.01). CONCLUSION: This is the first study using pedobarography to document altered foot pressure patterns during ambulation in patients with disc herniation and stenosis. Decreased load transfer, asymmetrical and unphysiological distribution of pressures on the affected foot were observed during weight bearing, which improved after surgical decompression.