The NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) Trial. Cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a double-blind randomised multicenter study

Background. Patients with cervical radicular syndrome due to disc herniation refractory to conservative treatment are offered surgical treatment. Anterior cervical discectomy is the standard procedure, often in combination with interbody fusion. Accelerated adjacent disc degeneration is a known entity on the long term. Recently, cervical disc prostheses are developed to maintain motion and possibly reduce the incidence of adjacent disc degeneration. A comparative cost-effectiveness study focused on adjacent segment degeneration and functional outcome has not been performed yet. We present the design of the NECK trial, a randomised study on cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in patients with cervical disc herniation. Methods/Design. Patients (age 18-65 years) presenting with radicular signs due to single level cervical disc herniation lasting more than 8 weeks are included. Patients will be randomised into 3 groups: anterior discectomy only, anterior discectomy with interbody fusion, and anterior discectomy with disc prosthesis. The primary outcome measure is symptomatic adjacent disc degeneration at 2 and 5 years after surgery. Other outcome parameters will be the Neck Disability Index, perceived recovery, arm and neck pain, complications, re-operations, quality of life, job satisfaction, anxiety and depression assessment, medical consumption, absenteeism, and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial, in which 3 surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses will be kept blinded of the allocated treatment for 2 years. The follow-up period is 5 years. Discussion. Currently, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation. Whether additional interbody fusion or disc prothesis is necessary and cost-effective will be determined by this trial. Trial Registration. Netherlands Trial Register NTR1289

Clinical outcome in decompression alone versus decompression and instrumented fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis:A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE In the surgical treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis, it is debatable whether instrumented fusion is mandatory in addition to decompression. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to assess the long-term effect of decompression alone compared with decompression and instrumented fusion in patients who underwent the intervention of their own preference. The results were compared with those in patients who underwent randomly assigned treatment. METHODS The authors performed a prospective observational multicenter cohort study, including 91 patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis assigned to undergo either decompression alone (n = 44) or decompression and fusion (n = 47). The main outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) scores and the patient's perceived recovery at the 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) leg pain and back pain scores and the reoperation rate. A meta-analysis was performed for data from this cohort study (n = 91) and from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) previously reported by the authors (n = 84). Subgroup analyses were performed on these combined data for age, sex, weight, smoking, and Meyerding grade. RESULTS At the 12-week follow-up, improvements of RDQ scores were comparable for the two procedures (decompression alone [D group] 4.4, 95% CI 2.3-6.5; decompression and fusion [DF group] 5.8, 95% CI −4.3 to 1.4; p = 0.31). Likewise, VAS leg pain scores (D group 35.0, 95% CI 24.5-45.6; DF group 47.5, 95% CI 37.4-57.5; p = 0.09) and VAS back pain scores (D group 23.5, 95% CI 13.3-33.7; DF group 34.0, 95% CI 24.1-43.8; p = 0.15) were comparable. At the 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of scores for RDQ (difference −3.1, 95% CI −6.4 to 0.3, p = 0.07), VAS leg pain (difference −7.4, 95% CI −22.1 to 7.2, p = 0.31), and VAS back pain (difference −11.4, 95% CI −25.7 to 2.9, p = 0.12). In contrast, patient-perceived recovery from leg pain was significantly higher in the DF group (79% vs 51%, p = 0.02). Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate a superior outcome for decompression alone compared with decompression and fusion. Nine patients (20.5%) underwent reoperation in total, all in the D group. The meta-analysis including both the cohort and RCT populations yielded an estimated pooled mean difference in RDQ of −3.7 (95% CI −5.94 to −1.55, p = 0.0008) in favor of decompression and fusion at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS In patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, at the 2-year follow-up, patients who underwent decompression and fusion showed superior functional outcome and perceived recovery compared with those who underwent decompression alone. No subgroups benefited from decompression alone. Therefore, decompression and fusion is recommended over decompression alone as a primary surgical treatment option in isthmic spondylolisthesis.</p

Timing and minimal access surgery for sciatica: a summary of two randomized trials

Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis:Study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial)

Introduction Patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis are frequently treated with nerve root decompression, in addition to pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion. Minimally invasive approaches are gaining attention in recent years, although there is no clear evidence supporting the proclamation of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) being better than open surgery. We present the design of the MISOS (Minimal Invasive Surgery versus Open Surgery) trial on the effectiveness of MISS versus open surgery in patients with degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Methods and analysis All patients (age 18-75 years) with neurogenic claudication or radicular leg pain based on low-grade degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis with persistent complaints for at least 3 months are eligible. Patients will be randomised into mini-open decompression with bilateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (MISS), or conventional surgery with decompression and instrumented fusion with pedicle screws and bilateral interbody fusion (open). The primary outcome measure is Visual Analogue Scale of self-reported low back pain. Secondary outcome measures include improvement of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, patients' perceived recovery, quality of life, resumption of work, complications, blood loss, length of hospital stay, incidence of reoperations and documentation of fusion. This study is designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Based on a 20 mm difference of low back pain score at 6 weeks (power of 90%, assuming 8% loss to follow-up), a total of 184 patients will be needed. All analyses will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board Southwest Holland in August 2014 (registration number NL 49044.098.14) and subsequently approved by the board of all participating hospitals. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences

Effectiveness of percutaneous laser disc decompression versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation; design of a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background. The usual surgical treatment of refractory sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, is open discectomy. Minimally invasive procedures, including percutaneous therapies under local anesthesia, are increasingly gaining attention. One of these treatments is Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression (PLDD). This treatment can be carried out in an outpatient setting and swift recovery and return to daily routine are suggested. Thus far, no randomized trial into cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus standard surgical procedure has been performed. We present the design of a randomized controlled trial, studying the cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus conventional open discectomy in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation. Methods/design. The study is a randomized prospective multi-center trial, in which two treatment strategies are compared in a parallel group design. Patients (age 18-70 years) visiting the neurosurgery department of the participating hospitals, are considered for inclusion in the trial when sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation has lasted more than 8 weeks. Patients with disc herniation smaller than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, without concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eligible for participation, and are randomized into one of two treatment arms; either Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression or conventional discectomy. The functional outcome of the patient, as assessed by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 8 weeks and 1 year after treatment, is the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome parameters are recovery as perceived by the patient, leg and back pain, incidence of re-intervention, complications, quality of life, medical consumption, absence of work and secondary costs. Discussion. Open discectomy is still considered to be the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression has at least as much efficacy as the standard surgical procedure, and is more cost-effective, will be determined by this trial. Trial registration. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25884790

AMEG: the new SETAC advisory group on aquatic macrophyte ecotoxicology

Introduction and background Primary producers play critical structural and functional roles in aquatic ecosystems; therefore, it is imperative that the potential risks of toxicants to aquatic plants are adequately assessed in the risk assessment of chemicals. The standard required macrophyte test species is the floating (non-sediment-rooted) duckweed Lemna spp. This macrophyte species might not be representative of all floating, rooted, emergent, and submerged macrophyte species because of differences in the duration and mode of exposure; sensitivity to the specific toxic mode of action of the chemical; and species-specific traits (e.g., duckweed's very short generation time). Discussion and perspectives These topics were addressed during the workshop entitled “Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides” (AMRAP) where a risk assessment scheme for aquatic macrophytes was proposed. Four working groups evolved from this workshop and were charged with the task of developing Tier 1 and higher-tier aquatic macrophyte risk assessment procedures. Subsequently, a SETAC Advisory Group, the Macrophyte Ecotoxicology Group (AMEG) was formed as an umbrella organization for various macrophyte working groups. The purpose of AMEG is to provide scientifically based guidance in all aspects of aquatic macrophyte testing in the laboratory and field, including prospective as well as retrospective risk assessments for chemicals. As AMEG expands, it will begin to address new topics including bioremediation and sustainable management of aquatic macrophytes in the context of ecosystem services

Clinical outcome of instrumented fusion for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome: a case series of 100 patients

Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]

Background. Nerve root decompression with instrumented spondylodesis is the most frequently performed surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with symptomatic low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Nerve root decompression without instrumented fusion, i.e. Gill's procedure, is an alternative and less invasive approach. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis. Methods/design. All patients (age between 18 and 70 years) with sciatica or neurogenic claudication lasting more than 3 months due to spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grade I or II, are eligible for inclusion. Patients will be randomly allocated to nerve root decompression according to Gill, either unilateral or bilateral, or pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion. The main primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 12 weeks and 2 years. Other primary outcome measures are perceived recovery and intensity of leg pain and low back pain. The secondary outcome measures include, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine phosphokinase, quality of life, medical consumption, costs, absenteeism, work perception, depression and anxiety, and treatment preference. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurse will not be blinded during the follow-up period of 2 years. Discussion. Currently, nerve root decompression with instrumented fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, although scientific proof justifying instrumented spondylodesis over simple decompression is lacking. This trial is designed to elucidate the controversy in best surgical treatment of symptomatic patients with low-

Deficiency in origin licensing proteins impairs cilia formation: implications for the aetiology of meier-gorlin syndrome

Mutations in ORC1, ORC4, ORC6, CDT1, and CDC6, which encode proteins required for DNA replication origin licensing, cause Meier-Gorlin syndrome (MGS), a disorder conferring microcephaly, primordial dwarfism, underdeveloped ears, and skeletal abnormalities. Mutations in ATR, which also functions during replication, can cause Seckel syndrome, a clinically related disorder. These findings suggest that impaired DNA replication could underlie the developmental defects characteristic of these disorders. Here, we show that although origin licensing capacity is impaired in all patient cells with mutations in origin licensing component proteins, this does not correlate with the rate of progression through S phase. Thus, the replicative capacity in MGS patient cells does not correlate with clinical manifestation. However, ORC1-deficient cells from MGS patients and siRNA-mediated depletion of origin licensing proteins also have impaired centrosome and centriole copy number. As a novel and unexpected finding, we show that they also display a striking defect in the rate of formation of primary cilia. We demonstrate that this impacts sonic hedgehog signalling in ORC1-deficient primary fibroblasts. Additionally, reduced growth factor-dependent signaling via primary cilia affects the kinetics of cell cycle progression following cell cycle exit and re-entry, highlighting an unexpected mechanism whereby origin licensing components can influence cell cycle progression. Finally, using a cell-based model, we show that defects in cilia function impair chondroinduction. Our findings raise the possibility that a reduced efficiency in forming cilia could contribute to the clinical features of MGS, particularly the bone development abnormalities, and could provide a new dimension for considering developmental impacts of licensing deficiency