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

Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

Two-level anterior cervical discectomy and cage-assisted fusion without plates.

OBJECT: Anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) is an effective and safe treatment for nerve root or spinal cord compression caused by disc herniation or spondylosis. Cervical interbody fusion allows preservation of the physiological lordosis and stability of the cervical spine. Based on data reported in the literature, fusion rates decrease significantly when more than one level undergoes surgery, and some authors recommend the addition of a plate system to improve results. At the authors' institution cervical carbon fiber cages (CFCs) are routinely used after ACD. They describe their experience in the treatment of 24 patients with two-level disease treated with CFCs alone. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with cervical radiculopathy and three with radiculomyelopathy underwent ACD. Surgery was performed at C5-6 and C6-7 in 18, at C4-5 and C5-6 in four, and at C3-4 and C5-6 in two patients. All the patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and 15 also underwent computerized tomography (CT) to assess the results of surgery. Radiculopathy improved after surgery in all the cases, whereas myelopathy resolved in only one patient. At 1 year fusion was achieved in 96% of the surgically treated discs; this was verified on cervical spine x-ray films in all patients and on CT scans in three patients. Cervical lordosis was restored in eight of the nine patients in whom it was lost preoperatively. No complications related to cage extrusion and no cases of symptomatic pseudarthrosis were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Interbody fusion cages have a load-sharing function and stabilize the spine to increase segmental stiffness, thus achieving fusion rates similar to those associated with bone grafts, even in multilevel disease

Risk factors for deep surgical site infections after spinal fusion

Surgical site infections (SSI) are undesired and troublesome complications after spinal surgery. The reported infection rates range from 0.7 to 11.9%, depending on the diagnosis and the complexity of the procedure. Besides operative factors, patient characteristics could also account for increased infection rates. Because the medical, economic and social costs of SSI are enormous, any significant reduction in risks will pay dividends. The purpose of this study is to compare patients who developed deep SSI following lumbar or thoracolumbar spinal fusion with a randomly selected group of patients who did not develop this complication in order to identify changeable risk factors. With a case–control analysis nested in a historical cohort of patients who had had a spinal fusion between January 1999 and December 2008, we identified 36 cases with deep SSI (CDC criteria). Information regarding patient-level and surgical-level risk factors was derived from standardized but routinely recorded data and compared with those acquired in a random selection of 135 uninfected patients. Univariate analyses and a multivariate logistic regression were performed. The overall rate of infection in 1,615 procedures (1,568 patients) was 2.2%. A positive history of spinal surgery was associated with an almost four times higher infection rate (OR = 3.7, 95% BI = 1.6–8.6). The risk of SSI increased with the number of levels fused, patients with diabetes had an almost six times higher risk and smokers had more than a two times higher risk for deep SSI. The most common organism cultured was Staphylococcus aureus. All infected patients underwent at least one reoperation, including an open débridement and received appropriate antibiotics to treat the organism. Patients who had had a previous spinal surgery are a high-risk group for infection compared with those that never had surgery. Total costs associated with preventive measures are substantial and should be compensated by health care insurance companies by means of separate clinical pathways. High-risk patients should be informed about the increased risk of complications

Surgical techniques for sciatica due to herniated disc, a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Disc herniation with sciatica accounts for five percent of low-back disorders but is one of the most common reasons for spine surgery. The goal of this study was to update the Cochrane review on the effect of surgical techniques for sciatica due to disc herniation, which was last updated in 2007. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In April 2011, we conducted a comprehensive search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDRO, ICL, and trial registries. We also checked the reference lists and citation tracking results of each retrieved article. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of the surgical management of sciatica due to disc herniation were included. Comparisons including chemonucleolysis and prevention of scar tissue or comparisons against conservative treatment were excluded. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias of the studies and extracted data. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Seven studies from the original Cochrane review were included and nine additional studies were found. In total, 16 studies were included, of which four had a low risk of bias. Studies showed that microscopic discectomy results in a significantly, but not clinically relevant longer operation time of 12 min (95% CI 2-22) and shorter incision of 24 mm (95% CI 7-40) compared with open discectomy, but did not find any clinically relevant superiority of either technique on clinical results. There were conflicting results regarding the comparison of tubular discectomy versus microscopic discectomy for back pain and surgical duration. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited amount and quality of evidence, no firm conclusions on effectiveness of the current surgical techniques being open discectomy, microscopic discectomy, and tubular discectomy compared with each other can be drawn. Those differences in leg or back pain scores, operation time, and incision length that were found are clinically insignificant. Large, high-quality studies are needed, which examine not only effectiveness but cost-effectiveness as well