Cervical disc herniation and cervical spondylosis surgically treated by Cloward procedure: a 10-year-minimum follow-up study

BACKGROUND: Cervical degenerative pathology produces pain and disability, and if conservative treatment fails, surgery is indicated. The aim of this study was to determined whether anterior decompression and interbody fusion according to Cloward is effective for treating segmental cervical degenerative pathology and whether the results are durable after a 10-year-minimum follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients affected by single-level cervical degenerative pathology between C4 and C7 were surgically treated by the Cloward procedure. Clinical evaluation was rated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the visual analog scale (VAS). At last follow-up, the outcomes were rated according to Odom's criteria. On radiographs, the sagittal segmental alignment (SSA) of the affected level and the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine (SACS) were measured. RESULTS: Average NDI was 34 preoperatively and 11 at last follow-up. Average VAS was 7 preoperatively and 1 at last follow-up. According to Odom's criteria, the outcome was considered excellent in 18 cases, good in 22, and fair in 11. Average SSA was 0.5 +/- 2.1 preoperatively, 1.8 +/- 3.8 at 6 months, and 1.8 +/- 5.7 at last follow-up. Average SACS was 16.5 +/- 4.0 preoperatively, 20.9 +/- 5.8 at 6 months, and 19.9 +/- 6.4 at last follow-up. Degenerative changes at the adjacent levels were observed in 18 patients (35.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The Cloward procedure proved to be a suitable and effective technique for treating segmental cervical degenerative pathology, allowing good clinical and radiographic outcomes even at a long-term follow-up

Modified transcorporeal anterior cervical microforaminotomy assisted by O-arm-based navigation: a technical case report

This study was done to present our surgical experience of modified transcorporeal anterior cervical microforaminotomy (MTACM) assisted by the O-arm-based navigation system for the treatment of cervical disc herniation. We present eight patients with foraminal disc herniations at the C5–C6, C6–C7, and C7–T1 levels. All patients had unilateral radicular arm pain and motor weakness. The inclusion criteria for the patients were the presence of single-level unilateral foraminal cervical disc herniation manifesting persistent radiculopathy despite conservative treatment. Hard disc herniation, down-migrated disc herniation, concomitant moderate to severe bony spur and foraminal stenosis were excluded. We performed MTACM to expose the foraminal area of the cervical disc and removed the herniated disc fragments successfully using O-arm-based navigation. Postoperatively, the patients’ symptoms improved and there was no instability during the follow-up period. MTACM assisted by O-arm-based navigation is an effective, safe, and precise minimally invasive procedure that tends to preserve non-degenerated structures as much as possible while providing a complete removal of ruptured disc fragments in the cervical spine

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field