Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2013 through December 2019. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion (PLF) and/or other lumbar interbody fusion were included for the review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar spinal diseases. Results: Of 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other surgical techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate [RR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72-0.97), p = 0.02, I 2 = 0.0%] at 1-year follow-up whereas there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow-up [RR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96-1.18), p = 0.27, I 2 = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59-1.38), p = 0.63, I 2 = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34-1.79), p = 0.56, I 2 = 39.0%] was similar to PLF and XLIF groups. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (no fusion, ALIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF) [MD = 31.88 (95% CI = 5.33-58.44), p = 0.02, I 2 = 92.0%]. There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of blood loss (no fusion, PLIF, PLF) and clinical outcomes (PLF). Conclusions: Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, TLIF has a similar fusion rate, clinical outcomes, parameters concerning operation and complications to no fusion, PLF, and other interbody fusion (PLIF, ALIF, XLIF). Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020186858.

Posterior epidural sequestrated disc presenting with contralateral radiculopathy: a very rare case.

INTRODUCTION: Posterior epidural sequestrated disc is a fairly uncommon condition. We report a case of an unusual presentation of posterior epidural migration with contralateral symptoms. We emphasize a high index of suspicion for early recognition and treatment to promote a good neurological recovery. CASE PRESENTATION: A 58-year-old man with a history of severe back pain for 1 week developed sudden right leg weakness while walking. Neurological examination revealed motor and sensory impairments of the right lower extremities (positive right straight leg raising test, right tibialis anterior grade 2/5, right extensor hallucis longus grade 1/5, decreased pinprick sensation of L4-5 dermatome right side) according to the Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury as Asia Impairment Scale D. Magnetic resonance images showed an acute disc herniation at L4-5 on the left side, cranially migrated and sequestrated to the posterior epidural area, causing severe compression to the cauda equina in the thecal sac. The patient was successfully treated with surgery (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) on an urgent basis. We saw significant neurological recovery on the first day after surgery. Motor power recovery was achieved with a minor deficit at 4 weeks. At the follow-up examination at 3 months, the patient had no residual neurological deficits as Asia Impairment Scale E. DISCUSSION: Posterior epidural sequestrated disc with contralateral radiculopathy is very rare. This case brings a new presentation of posterior epidural sequestrated disc. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a case with an unusual presentation of contralateral radiculopathy.

Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy: Retrospective Review of Clinical Results and Complications in 545 International Patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques have been developed to provide access to the disc with better visualization while causing less muscle trauma and its consequences. This study was aimed at evaluating the clinical outcomes and complications of the fully endoscopic lumbar discectomy interlaminar approach in a large number of patients. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus who underwent fully endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy between 2011 and 2016 were reviewed. Perioperative data, preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) back pain scores, VAS leg pain scores, and complications were evaluated and recorded at 1 week and 3 and 6 months postoperatively and each year thereafter. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 545 patients (average age, 46.43 years; 34.31% female). The affected levels were L2-3 in 1.47%, L3-4 in 6.96%, L4-5 in 49.45%, and L5-S1 in 44.69%. Mean preoperative ODI, VAS back pain score, and VAS leg pain score were 43.00%, 5.00, and 5.69, respectively. Postoperative ODI at 1 month was reduced to 15.59% and remained within a range of 14.83%18.32% throughout follow-up. Postoperative VAS back and leg pain score results at 1 week were decreased to 1.66 and 1.79, respectively, and remained at 1.89-3.14 and 1.59-2.66, respectively, throughout follow-up. Sixty-six recurrences (12.11%) were diagnosed. Intraoperative complications were nerve root-related (n = 3) and dural tear (n = 1). Postoperative complications included numbness (n = 18), weakness (n = 5), and residual disc (n = 1). No infections or hematomas were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Fully endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy is a safe, effective option for treating lumbar disc herniation, with a long recurrence-free recovery.

Variation of C1 spinolaminar line and prevalence of C1 stenosis in normal population.

BACKGROUND: The variation of C1 spinolaminar line in normal population is not fully understood. The relative position of C1 lamina to C3-C2 spinolaminar line is reported as good screening tool for determination of C1 canal stenosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the variation of C1 spinolaminar line and find the prevalence of C1 canal stenosis in normal population using C3-C2 spinolaminar test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and fifteen lateral cervical radiographs from 315 volunteers without neurological symptoms were analyzed. The relative position of C1 spinolaminar line was determined by C3-C2 spinolaminar and considered positive if C1 lamina lay ventral to C3-C2 line. C1 space available for cord (SAC) was measured from posterior border of dens to the C1 lamina to determine the sagittal diameter. RESULTS: The mean sagittal spinal canal diameter of C1 was 22.2 mm (13-26 mm). Of 315, 14 (4.4%) had positive, 184 (58.4%) had neutral, and 117 (37.1%) had negative C1 spinolaminar line in relation to C3-C2 line. The mean SAC among positive group was 14.9 mm compared to neutral and negative groups which were 22.2 and 23.3 mm, respectively. 21.4% of positive group had SAC of less than 12 mm. The 92.8% of positive C1 spinolaminar line was found in age ≥ 60 years. CONCLUSION: In a normal population, 4.4% has positive C1 spinolaminar line. The C1 stenosis is more prevalent in positive C1 spinolaminar line group.

Morphological study of subaxial cervical pedicles by using three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction image.

Malpositioning of cervical screws risks neurovascular injury. A cervical screw fixation system can provide proper rigidity, alignment correction, and high rates of fusion afforded by high pullout biomechanical strength. The objective is to assess the dimensions and axis of the C3-C7 cervical pedicles. A 1-mm slice thickness computed tomography (CT) scan of the cervical spine of 30 patients (15 males, 15 females) were analyzed and reconstructed in three-dimensions using Mimics(®) 10.01 software. We measured pedicle axis length (PAL), pedicle and lateral mass length (PL-LM), pedicle length (PL), outer pedicle width (OPW), and pedicle transverse angle (PTA) from the axial image and outer pedicle height (OPH) and pedicle sagittal angle (PSA) from the sagittal image. The OPH and OPW at all subaxial cervical spines were suitable for insertion of 3.5 mm cervical pedicle screws. PSA was directed cranially at C3 to C5 (13.84, 7.09, and 2.71) and directed caudally at C6 and C7 (-4.55, -6.94). PTA was greatest at C5 and smallest at C7. The respective difference between the left and right side for nearly all parameters was not statistically significant (except for C6 PL and C7 OPH). Females had a significantly smaller OPH and OPW than males at nearly all levels. The PTA was not significantly different between the sexes. Cervical pedicle screw fixation in the Thai population can be safely performed and guidelines for insertion at each vertebra documented. Appropriate preoperative planning is necessary to achieve safe and accurate placement of the screws.