ABSTRACT
The advent of ultra-minimally invasive endoscopic spine surgery, characterized by significantly reduced surgery times, minimal blood loss, and minimal tissue trauma, has precipitated a paradigm shift in the preoperative management of patients with cardiac disease undergoing elective spine procedures. This perspective article explores how these advancements have influenced the requirements for preoperative cardiac workups and the protocols surrounding the cessation of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies. Traditionally, extensive cardiac evaluations and the need to stop anticoagulation and antiplatelet agents have posed challenges, increasing the risk of cardiac events and delaying surgical interventions. However, the reduced invasiveness of endoscopic spine surgery presents a safer profile for patients with cardiac comorbidities, potentially minimizing the necessity for rigorous cardiac clearance and allowing for more flexible anticoagulation management. This perspective article synthesizes current research and clinical practices to provide a comprehensive overview of these evolving protocols. It also discusses the implications of these changes for patient safety, surgical outcomes, and overall healthcare efficiency. Finally, the article suggests directions for future research, emphasizing the need for updated guidelines that reflect the reduced perioperative risk associated with these innovative surgical techniques. This discussion is pivotal for primary care physicians, surgeons, cardiologists, and the broader medical community in optimizing care for this high-risk patient population.
ABSTRACT
Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.
ABSTRACT
(1) Background: Postoperative nerve root injury with dysesthesia is the most frequent sequela following lumbar endoscopic transforaminal discectomy. At times, it may be accompanied by transient and rarely by permanent motor weakness. The authors hypothesized that direct compression of the exiting nerve root and its dorsal root ganglion (DRG) by manipulating the working cannula or endoscopic instruments may play a role. (2) Objective: To assess whether intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring can help prevent nerve root injury by identifying neurophysiological events during the initial placement of the endoscopic working cannula and the directly visualized video endoscopic procedure. (3) Methods: The authors performed a retrospective chart review of 65 (35 female and 30 male) patients who underwent transforaminal endoscopic decompression for failed non-operative treatment of lumbar disc herniation from 2012 to 2020. The patients' age ranged from 22 to 86 years, with an average of 51.75 years. Patients in the experimental group (32 patients) had intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring recordings using sensory evoked (SSEP), and transcranial motor evoked potentials (TCEP), those in the control group (32 patients) did not. The SSEP and TCMEP data were analyzed and correlated to the postoperative course, including dysesthesia and clinical outcomes using modified Macnab criteria, Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and back pain. (4) Results: The surgical levels were L4/L5 in 44.6%, L5/S1 in 23.1%, and L3/L4 in 9.2%. Of the 65 patients, 56.9% (37/65) had surgery on the left, 36.9% (24/65) on the right, and the remaining 6.2% (4/65) underwent bilateral decompression. Postoperative dysesthesia occurred in 2 patients in the experimental and six patients in the control group. In the experimental neuromonitoring group, there was electrodiagnostic evidence of compression of the exiting nerve root's DRG in 24 (72.7%) of the 32 patients after initial transforaminal placement of the working cannula. A 5% or more decrease and a 50% or more decrease in amplitude of SSEPs and TCEPs recordings of the exiting nerve root were resolved by repositioning the working cannula or by pausing the root manipulation until recovery to baseline, which typically occurred within an average of 1.15 min. In 15 of the 24 patients with such latency and amplitude changes, a foraminoplasty was performed before advancing the endoscopic working cannula via the transforaminal approach into the neuroforamen to avoid an impeding nerve root injury and postoperative dysesthesia. (5) Conclusion: Neuromonitoring enabled the intraoperative diagnosis of DRG compression during the initial transforaminal placement of the endoscopic working cannula. Future studies with more statistical power will have to investigate whether employing neuromonitoring to avoid intraoperative compression of the exiting nerve root is predictive of lower postoperative dysesthesia rates in patients undergoing videoendoscopic transforaminal discectomy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become widely used to better measure patients' judgment of treatment benefits from surgical spine care. The concept of determining the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of PROMs is aimed at assessing the benefits of lumbar spine care that are meaningful to the patient. The goal of this study was to validate the utility of MCIDs of the visual analog score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in patients with sciatica-type low back and leg pain due to lateral recess and foraminal stenosis who were treated with directly visualized transforaminal outpatient endoscopic decompression. METHODS: The retrospective study population consisted of 406 patients on whom PROMs were obtained preoperatively, and again postoperatively at final follow-up. Employing an anchor-based approach with a patient satisfaction index based on the modified Macnab criteria, a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 25.0 to define the optimal MCID in VAS and ODI with the transforaminal endoscopy using the top-left-corner criteria and the Youden index. Improvements in walking endurance were recorded as an additional parameter of patient functioning and correlated with PROMs to test for statistical significance. RESULTS: The patients' average age was 41.08 years, ranging from 30 to 84 years. The mean follow-up was 33.59 months, ranging from 24 to 85 months, with a standard deviation of 12.79. The MCIDs for VAS and ODI were 2.5 to 3.5 and 15 to 16.5, respectively. Patients were dichotomized as improved (377/406; 92.9%) if they reported excellent (224/406; 55.2%), good (112/406; 27.6%), and fair (41/406; 10.1%) Macnab outcomes. Patients were dichotomized as failed if they reported poor (29/406; 7.1%) Macnab outcomes. Preoperatively, only 32.5% (132/406) of patients had unlimited walking endurance compared to 77.6% (315/406) of patients postoperatively. The ROC and AUC analysis showed better accuracy with the single-integer VAS score (0.926) than with the 10-item ODI score (0.751). CONCLUSIONS: Transforaminal outpatient endoscopic decompression for symptomatic foraminal and lateral recess stenosis is an effective surgical treatment to alleviate sciatica-type and back symptoms in 92.9% of patients. Of the PROMs analyzed, the VAS provided a more meaningful and accurate reflection of patients' interpretation of outcome with the transforaminal endoscopic spinal decompression procedure than ODI. Understanding which patient expectations drive these MCIDs may aid in replacing open surgeries for sciatica-type low back and leg pain currently preferred by traditional spine surgeons with a personalized early-staged transforaminal endoscopic hybrid decompressive/ablative procedures favored by the authors. These may prove more cost effective by focusing on significant pain generators validated with a diagnostic interventional workup instead of employing image-based indication criteria for surgery.