RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVE: The spine is the most common site of metastases, associated with decreased quality of life. Increase in metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS) has caused us to focus on the management of blood, as blood loss is a significant morbidity in these patients. However, blood transfusion is also not without its own risks, and hence this led to blood conservation strategies and implementation of a concept of patient blood management (PBM) in clinical practise focusing on these patients. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted and all studies that were related to blood management in metastatic spine disease as well as PBM surrounding this condition were included. RESULTS: A total of 64 studies were included in this review. We discussed a new concept of patient blood management in patients undergoing MSTS, with stratification to pre-operative and intra-operative factors, as well as anaesthesia and surgical considerations. The studies show that PBM and reduction in blood transfusion allows for reduced readmission rates, lower risks associated with blood transfusion, and lower morbidity for patients undergoing MSTS. CONCLUSION: Through this review, we highlight various pre-operative and intra-operative methods in the surgical and anaesthesia domains that can help with PBM. It is an important concept with the significant amount of blood loss expected from MSTS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-center, single-surgeon cohort study. PURPOSE: Our goal was to compare the 2-year clinical and radiological results of artificial disc replacement (ADR) and cage screw (CS) implants in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with CS implants are an acceptable alternative to traditional cageplate construct due to perceived decreased complications of dysphagia. However, patients may experience adjacent segment disease because of increased motion and intradiscal pressure. ADR is an alternative to restore the physiological kinematics of the operated disc. Few studies directly compare ADR and CS construct for their efficacy. METHODS: Patients who received single-level ADR or CS between January 2008 and December 2018 were included. Data collected was preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively (6, 12, 24 months). Demographic information, surgical information, complications, follow-up surgery, and outcome ratings (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA], Neck Disability Index [NDI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS] neck and arm, 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], EuroQoL-5 Dimension [EQ-5D]) were gathered. The radiological assessment included motion segment height, adjacent disc height, lordosis, cervical lordosis, T1 slope, the sagittal vertical axis C2-7, and adjacent level ossification development (ALOD). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included (ADR: 37 and CS: 21). At 6 months, both groups' JOA, VAS, NDI, SF-36, and EQ-5D scores significantly improved, and the positive trends persisted at 2 years. Noted no significant difference in the enhancement of clinical scores except for the VAS arm (ADR: 5.95 vs. CS: 3.43, p =0.001). Radiological parameters were comparable except for the progression of ALOD of the subjacent disc (ADR: 29.7% vs. CS: 66.9%, p =0.02). No significant difference in adverse events or severe complications seen. CONCLUSIONS: ADR and CS obtain good clinical results for symptomatic single-level cervical DDD. ADR demonstrated a significant advantage over CS in the improvement of VAS arm and reduced progression of ALOD of the adjacent lower disc. No statistically significant difference of dysphonia or dysphagia between the two groups were seen, attributed to their comparable zero profile.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To assess and compare 5-year outcomes following uninstrumented spinal decompression and decompression with interlaminar device (ILD). To determine whether improvement in clinical outcomes correlated with changes in the radiological indices studied. This is because comparative literature between the above two procedures is limited past the 2-year timeframe. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single surgeon across 116-patients who underwent spinal decompression with or without ILD insertion between 2007 and 2015. Patients with symptomatic LSS who met the study criteria were offered spinal decompression with ILD insertion. Patients who accepted ILD were placed in the D + ILD group (n = 61); while those opting for decompression alone were placed in the DA group (n = 55). Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and up to 5-years postoperatively using the ODI, Eq. 5d, VAS back and leg pain, and SF-36. Radiological indices were assessed preoperatively and up to 5-years postoperatively. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in all clinical outcome indicators at all timepoints as compared to their preoperative status. The D + ILD group achieved significant improvement in radiological parameters namely foraminal height and posterior disc height in the immediate postoperative period that was maintained while the DA group did not. CONCLUSION: Our study found that in the management of LSS, clinical outcomes between those patients undergoing decompression alone compared to decompression with ILD showed statistically significant improvement in VAS back pain and radiological parameters namely foraminal height and posterior disc height at the 5-year mark. ILD does not predispose to increased reoperation rates.
