Implantation of a bone-anchored annular closure device in conjunction with tubular minimally invasive discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar discectomy have been recommended as superior to open techniques due to lower blood loss, lower rates of infection and shorter recovery. There are, however, concerns that this approach does not sufficiently remove the herniated nuclear material, thus leaving the patient susceptible to reherniation requiring reoperation. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and viability of an annular closure device in limiting reherniation and reoperation in a cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar discectomy with the assistance of an annular closure device. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the results from patients treated by a single surgeon between March 2011 and December 2017. All patients had been diagnosed with a large (≥ 5 mm) defect and were treated via minimally invasive surgical techniques. Outcomes included demographic data, the procedural duration and the rates of symptomatic reherniation and reoperation. RESULTS: 60 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 42 years (range: 19-66); mean BMI was 24.1 (range: 16.7-36.3). Mean surgical duration was 29 min (range: 16-50). Reoperation was required in 5% (3/60) of patients, although only 3% (2/60) experienced symptomatic reherniation at the index level. No other complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the use of an annular closure device during minimally invasive lumbar discectomy in a population of patients with large herniations was associated with low rates of reherniation and reoperation at the index level. While more research is required, the results of this study demonstrate the safety and viability of the annular closure device as an adjunct to minimally invasive discectomy.

A Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Dentistry, Part 1: Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: As the volume of publications in dentistry continues to increase, clinicians are becoming increasingly reliant on systematic reviews and meta-analyses as their primary source of evidence. With an increase in the dependence on dental metaanalyses, it is important to ensure that they are being conducted with as little bias as possible. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the quality of therapeutic meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dental-related topics and to analyze how quality has changed over time. METHODS: All relevant studies were searched for through MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Title, abstract, and full-text review, as well as data extraction and quality assessment, were all conducted in duplicate. All reviewers used a pilot-tested extraction form that included the AMSTAR checklist to assess quality of systematic reviews. A logit link function ordinal regression was conducted to evaluate quality improvement trends over time. RESULTS: Of the 3832 studies identified, 208 studies were selected for review. Of these, 13% provided an a priori design, 53% screened and extracted data in duplicate, 29% included gray literature, 63% assessed the quality of included studies, and 39% assessed publication bias. As was indicated by the ordinal regression, the quality of meta-analyses, as per the AMSTAR criteria, has increased significantly with time (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation illustrates that although the quality of meta-analyses of RCTs has been increasing since the start of the millennium, there remains substantial room for improvement within all aspects of systematic review reporting and methodology. Therefore, it is critical for clinicians to take caution when reading systematic reviews and meta-analyses, ensuring that the principals of critical appraisal are applied when interpreting meta-analyses of RCTs.