Implementation of an Automated Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage System for Early Mobilization in Neurosurgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: Automated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage systems allow for the mobilization of patients with an external CSF drain. The aim of this study is to describe the implementation of an automated CSF drainage system in neurosurgical patients with external CSF drains. METHODS: A feasibility study was performed using an automated CSF drainage system (LiquoGuard®7, Möller Medical GmbH, Fulda, Germany) in adult neurosurgical patients treated with external lumbar or external ventricular drains between December 2017 and June 2020. Limited mobilization was allowed-patients were allowed to adjust their inclined beds, sit in chairs and walk under the supervision of a nurse or physical therapist. The primary outcome was the number of prematurely terminated drainage sessions. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were included. Drainage was terminated prematurely in eight (35%) patients. In three (13%) of these patients, drainage was terminated due to signs of hydrocephalus. Pressure-controlled drainage in patients with external lumbar drains (ELD) showed inaccurate pressure curves, which was solved by using volume-controlled drainage in ELD patients. CONCLUSION: The implementation of an automated CSF drainage system (LiquoGuard®7) for CSF drainage allows for early mobilization in a subset of patients with external CSF drains. External lumbar drains require volume-based drainage rather than differential pressure-dependent drainage.

Tubular discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The reference surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation is open microdiscectomy. Minimal invasive discectomy with tubular retractors is hypothesised to cause less tissue damage and result in lower blood loss, less postoperative pain and faster recovery. We previously reported our 1 and 2-year results, and found no better outcomes of tubular discectomy compared with open microdiscectomy. Until now, no studies on tubular discectomy have reported results with more than 2 years of follow-up. Studies with long-term follow-up are required to determine if clinical outcomes are sustained and to assess specific long-term outcomes such as reoperation rate and iatrogenic low back pain due to impaired spinal integrity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 5-year results of tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy. METHODS: The study was designed as a double-blind randomised controlled trial. 325 patients with a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation were randomly allocated to tubular discectomy (166 patients) or conventional microdiscectomy (159 patients). Repeated standardised follow-up measurements were performed at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 26, 38, 52, 78, 104, 156, 208 and 260 weeks after randomisation. Main outcomes are the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica (RDQ), Visual Analogue Scale for leg pain and low back pain, self-perceived recovery and reoperation incidence. RESULTS: There was no clinically significant difference between tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy regarding the main clinical outcomes at any time point during the 5 years of follow-up. RDQ scores at 5 years were 4.3 (95% CI 3.3 to 5.2) in the tubular discectomy group and 3.4 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.5) in the conventional microdiscectomy group. The mean difference of 0.9 (95% CI -0.6 to 2.2) was not significant. Mean differences for leg pain and back pain were 0.2 (95% CI -5.5 to 6.0) and 0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 6.7), respectively. 77% of patients allocated to conventional discectomy reported complete or near-complete recovery of symptoms compared with 74% of patients allocated to tubular discectomy (p=0.79). The reoperation rate was 18% in the tubular discectomy group and 13% in the conventional discectomy group (p=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term functional and clinical outcome did not differ between patients allocated to tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy. Primary and secondary outcome measures did not support the hypothesised advantages of tubular discectomy over conventional microdiscectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51857546.

Design of Lamifuse: a randomised, multi-centre controlled trial comparing laminectomy without or with dorsal fusion for cervical myeloradiculopathy.

BACKGROUND: laminectomy is a valuable surgical treatment for some patients with a cervical radiculomyelopathy due to cervical spinal stenosis. More recently attention has been given to motion of the spinal cord over spondylotic spurs as a cause of myelopathic changes. Immobilisation by fusion could have a positive effect on the recovery of myelopathic signs or changes. This has never been investigated in a prospective, randomised trial. Lamifuse is an acronyme for laminectomy and fusion. METHODS/DESIGN: Lamifuse is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing laminectomy with and without fusion in patients with a symptomatic cervical canal stenosis. The study population will be enrolled from patients that are 60 years or older with myelopathic signs and/or symptoms due to a cervical canal stenosis. A kyphotis shape of the cervical spine is an exclusion criterium. Each treatment arm needs 30 patients. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the discussion whether additional fusion after a cervical laminectomy results in a better clinical outcome. ISRCT NUMBER: ISRCTN72800446.