Comparison of interlaminar CT-guided epidural platelet-rich plasma versus steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of persistent lumbar radicular pain (LRP) by CT-guided epidural steroid injection (ESI) is extensively used and associated with rare but serious complications. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), which has recently been shown to favor healing and the anti-inflammatory process by delivering growth factors and cytokines, might be an alternative and potentially safer option. We compared the efficacy of interlaminar CT-guided epidural PRP injections (EPRPI) and ESI in the treatment of persistent LRP (> 6 weeks). METHODS: In this non-randomized comparative study, patients were prospectively assessed for pain using the numerical rating scale (NRS) and for function with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before and 6 weeks after treatment. Related paired and independent t tests were used for intra- and inter-group comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in 2 groups (n = 30 EPRPI, n = 30 ESI). A statistically significant improvement was found in both groups at 6 weeks (mean NRS values 5.7 (± 2.36) at D0 and 3.7 (± 2.3) at 6 weeks (p < 0.01); mean ODI values 30 (± 11) at D0 and 21 (± 13) at 6 weeks (p < 0.01)). No significant difference was observed in the decrease in NRS and ODI scores between the 2 groups at 6 weeks (p = 0.848 and p = 0.314 for the NRS and ODI, respectively). No major complications were noted. CONCLUSION: The results of CT-guided interlaminar EPRPI are similar to ESI for the treatment of persistent LRP and could be a safer option. KEY POINTS: • Treatment of persistent lumbar radicular pain by CT-guided epidural steroid injections is associated with rare but serious complications. • By promoting an anti-inflammatory process, epidural platelet-rich plasma injections might be an alternative treatment of persistent radicular pain. • Platelet-rich plasma CT-guided epidural injections are similar to steroid for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain at 6 weeks post-procedure and could be a safer option.

Pedicle screw placement accuracy in robot-assisted versus image-guided freehand surgery of thoraco-lumbar spine (ROBARTHRODESE): study protocol for a single-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Robotic spinal surgery may result in better pedicle screw placement accuracy, and reduction in radiation exposure and length of stay, compared to freehand surgery. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to compare screw placement accuracy of robot-assisted surgery with integrated 3D computer-assisted navigation versus freehand surgery with 2D fluoroscopy for arthrodesis of the thoraco-lumbar spine. METHODS: This is a single-centre evaluator-blinded RCT with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants (n = 300) will be randomized into two groups, robot-assisted (Mazor X Stealth Edition) versus freehand, after stratification based on the planned number of pedicle screws needed for surgery. The primary outcome is the proportion of pedicle screws placed with grade A accuracy (Gertzbein-Robbins classification) on postoperative computed tomography images. The secondary outcomes are intervention time, operation room occupancy time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, surgeon's radiation exposure, screw fracture/loosening, superior-level facet joint violation, complication rate, reoperation rate on the same level or one level above, functional and clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, pain, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, sensory and motor status) and cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: This RCT will provide insight into whether robot-assisted surgery with the newest generation spinal robot yields better pedicle screw placement accuracy than freehand surgery. Potential benefits of robot-assisted surgery include lower complication and revision rates, shorter length of stay, lower radiation exposure and reduction of economic cost of the overall care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05553028. Registered on September 23, 2022.

The safe and effective use of supercritical CO2-processed bone allografts for cervical and lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective study.

Introduction: The clinical efficacy and safety of supercritical CO2-processed bone allografts prepared from living donors has yet to be confirmed in spinal surgery. Here we report our clinical and surgical experience of using supercritical CO2-processed bone allografts for lumbar and cervical fusion. Methods: Sixteen patients underwent one or two level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and 37 patients underwent anterior retroperitoneal route lumbar fusion using bone allografts processed using supercritical CO2 extraction combined with chemical viral inactivation. Fusion success was assessed radiographically in the immediate postoperative period and at one month, six months, one year, and three years postoperatively. Function and pain were assessed using visual analog scales, Odom's criteria, the neck disability index (NDI), and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Results: At a mean of 43 and 47 months postoperatively, 95.3% and 90.5% of cervical and lumbar fusion patients had radiographic evidence of bone fusion, respectively. Over 80% of patients reported good to excellent outcomes according to Odom's criteria, the perception of pain significantly decreased, and the mean NDI and ODI scores significantly improved at the last follow-up compared with before the operations. There were no safety concerns. For the cervical group, the mean NDI score improved from 26.3 ± 6.01 preoperatively to 15.00 ± 8.03 and 17.60 ± 13.95 at immediate post-op (p = 0.02) and last follow-up visits (p = 0.037) respectively. For the lumbar cases, the mean ODI score improved from 28.31 ± 6.48 preoperatively to 14.68 ± 5.49 (p < 0.0001) and 12.54 ± 10.21 (p < 00001) at immediate post-op and last follow-up visits respectively. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the use of supercritical CO2-processed bone allografts resulted in satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rates with acceptable safety for both cervical and lumbar surgeries.