Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of total disc replacement surgery compared with spinal fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration. Low back pain (LBP), a major health problem in Western countries, can be caused by a variety of pathologies, one of which is degenerative disc disease (DDD). When conservative treatment fails, surgery might be considered. For a long time, lumbar fusion has been the “gold standard” of surgical treatment for DDD. Total disc replacement (TDR) has increased in popularity as an alternative for lumbar fusion. A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed up to October 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts, and relevant full text articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted relevant data and outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective cohort studies were identified. In all three trials, the total disc replacement was compared with lumbar fusion techniques. The Charité trial (designed as a non-inferiority trail) was considered to have a low risk of bias for the 2-year follow up, but a high risk of bias for the 5-year follow up. The Charité artificial disc was non-inferior to the BAK® Interbody Fusion System on a composite outcome of “clinical success” (57.1 vs. 46.5%, for the 2-year follow up; 57.8 vs. 51.2% for the 5-year follow up). There were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Prodisc artificial disc (also designed as a non-inferiority trail) was found to be statistically significant more effective when compared with the lumbar circumferential fusion on the composite outcome of “clinical success” (53.4 vs. 40.8%), but the risk of bias of this study was high. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Flexicore trial, with a high risk of bias, found no clinical relevant differences on pain and physical function when compared with circumferential spinal fusion at 2-year follow up. Because these are preliminary results, in addition to the high risk of bias, no conclusions can be drawn based on this study. In general, these results suggest that no clinical relevant differences between the total disc replacement and fusion techniques. The overall success rates in both treatment groups were small. Complications related to the surgical approach ranged from 2.1 to 18.7%, prosthesis related complications from 2.0 to 39.3%, treatment related complications from 1.9 to 62.0% and general complications from 1.0 to 14.0%. Reoperation at the index level was reported in 1.0 to 28.6% of the patients. In the three trials published, overall complication rates ranged from 7.3 to 29.1% in the TDR group and from 6.3 to 50.2% in the fusion group. The overall reoperation rate at index-level ranged from 3.7 to 11.4% in the TDR group and from 5.4 to 26.1% in the fusion group. In conclusion, there is low quality evidence that the Charité is non-inferior to the BAK cage at the 2-year follow up on the primary outcome measures. For the 5-year follow up, the same conclusion is supported only by very low quality evidence. For the ProDisc, there is very low quality evidence for contradictory results on the primary outcome measures when compared with anterior lumbar circumferential fusion. High quality randomized controlled trials with relevant control group and long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TDR

The efficacy of surgical decompression before 24 hours versus 24 to 72 hours in patients with spinal cord injury from T1 to L1 – with specific consideration on ethics: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is no clear evidence that early decompression following spinal cord injury (SCI) improves neurologic outcome. Such information must be obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date no large scale RCT has been performed evaluating the timing of surgical decompression in the setting of thoracolumbar spinal cord injury. A concern for many is the ethical dilemma that a delay in surgery may adversely effect neurologic recovery although this has never been conclusively proven. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of early (before 24 hours) verse late (24–72 hours) surgical decompression in terms of neurological improvement in the setting of traumatic thoracolumbar spinal cord injury in a randomized format by independent, trained and blinded examiners.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 328 selected spinal cord injury patients with traumatic thoracolumbar spinal cord injury are to be randomly assigned to: 1) early surgery (before 24 hours); or 2) late surgery (24–72 hours). A rapid response team and set up is prepared to assist the early treatment for the early decompressive group. Supportive care, i.e. pressure support, immobilization, will be provided on admission to the late decompression group. Patients will be followed for at least 12 months posttrauma.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will hopefully assist in contributing to the question of the efficacy of the timing of surgery in traumatic thoracolumbar SCI.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><b>RCT registration number: ISRCTN61263382</b></p

Pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of pneumorrhachis

Pneumorrhachis (PR), the presence of intraspinal air, is an exceptional but eminent radiographic finding, accompanied by different aetiologies and possible pathways of air entry into the spinal canal. By reviewing the literature and analysing a personal case of traumatic cervical PR after head injury, we present current data regarding the pathoanatomy, clinical and radiological presentation, diagnosis and differential diagnosis and treatment modalities of patients with PR and associated pathologies to highlight this uncommon phenomenon and outline aetiology-based guidelines for the practical management of PR. Air within the spinal canal can be divided into primary and secondary PR, descriptively classified into extra- or intradural PR and aetiologically subsumed into iatrogenic, traumatic and nontraumatic PR. Intraspinal air is usually found isolated not only in the cervical, thoracic and, less frequently, the lumbosacral regions but can also be located in the entire spinal canal. PR is almost exceptional associated with further air distributions in the body. The pathogenesis and aetiologies of PR are multifold and can be a diagnostic challenge. The diagnostic procedure should include spinal CT, the imaging tool of choice. PR has to be differentiated from free intraspinal gas collections and the coexistence of air and gas within the spinal canal has to be considered differential diagnostically. PR usually represents an asymptomatic epiphenomenon but can also be symptomatic by itself as well as by its underlying pathology. The latter, although often severe, might be concealed and has to be examined carefully to enable adequate patient treatment. The management of PR has to be individualized and frequently requires a multidisciplinary regime

Meta-analysis of pre-clinical studies of early decompression in acute spinal cord injury:a battle of time and pressure

The use of early decompression in the management of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) remains contentious despite many pre-clinical studies demonstrating benefits and a small number of supportive clinical studies. Although the pre-clinical literature favours the concept of early decompression, translation is hindered by uncertainties regarding overall treatment efficacy and timing of decompression.We performed meta-analysis to examine the pre-clinical literature on acute decompression of the injured spinal cord. Three databases were utilised; PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Embase. Our inclusion criteria consisted of (i) the reporting of efficacy of decompression at various time intervals (ii) number of animals and (iii) the mean outcome and variance in each group. Random effects meta-analysis was used and the impact of study design characteristics assessed with meta-regression.Overall, decompression improved behavioural outcome by 35.1% (95%CI 27.4-42.8; I(2)=94%, p<0.001). Measures to minimise bias were not routinely reported with blinding associated with a smaller but still significant benefit. Publication bias likely also contributed to an overestimation of efficacy. Meta-regression demonstrated a number of factors affecting outcome, notably compressive pressure and duration (adjusted r(2)=0.204, p<0.002), with increased pressure and longer durations of compression associated with smaller treatment effects. Plotting the compressive pressure against the duration of compression resulting in paraplegia in individual studies revealed a power law relationship; high compressive forces quickly resulted in paraplegia, while low compressive forces accompanying canal narrowing resulted in paresis over many hours.These data suggest early decompression improves neurobehavioural deficits in animal models of SCI. Although much of the literature had limited internal validity, benefit was maintained across high quality studies. The close relationship of compressive pressure to the rate of development of severe neurological injury suggests that pressure local to the site of injury might be a useful parameter determining the urgency of decompression