This study suggests that the use of Acrylic cage is associated with good clinical and radiologic outcomes and it can be therefore a good substitute for bone graft and other cages in ACDF.

OBJECT Despite advances in surgical and anesthesiology techniques, many patients continue to experience postoperative pain after lumbar disc operations. This study aims to investigate the effects of methylene blue (MB) on preventing postoperative low-back pain (LBP) with or without radicular pain and improving the quality of life (QOL) in patients undergoing lumbar open discectomy. METHODS This is a prospective, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which was conducted at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences between July 2011 to January 2012. Of a total of 130 patients, 115 were eligible for participation; 56 received 1 ml of MB solution at a concentration of 0.5% (MB group) and 59 received an equivalent volume of normal saline (control group). Primary outcomes were the control of LBP with or without radicular pain, which was evaluated preoperatively and at 24 hours and 3 months after surgery with the use of a visual analog scale (VAS), and the improvement of QOL, which was assessed preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively by means of the Persian translation of the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire. RESULTS The mean VAS scores for LBP were significantly lower in the MB group compared with the control group at 24 hours (1.25 ± 0.97 vs 2.80 ± 0.69, p < 0.001) and 3 months (1.02 ± 1.29 vs 2.07 ± 1.10, p = 0.019) after treatment. The mean radicular pain scores decreased significantly in the 2 groups at 24 hours after surgery, but the mean radicular pain score was significantly lower in the MB-treated patients than the control group. However, the difference between radicular pain scores in the MB group (1 ± 1.1) and the control group (1.2 ± 1) was not statistically significant (p = 0.64). The reduction in LBP was greater in the MB group than the control group (8.11 ± 1.74 vs 6.07 ± 1.52, p = 0.023, CI 95% −1.37 to −0.10). The functional QOL improved significantly 3 months after the operation in both groups (p < 0.001). Moderate disability occurred more frequently in the control group than in the MB group (14.5% vs 7.7%, p = 0.004). No toxicity, adverse effects, or complications were found in the group of patients treated with MB injection. CONCLUSIONS A single dose of MB (1 ml 0.5%) for coating the dura and surrounding tissues (facet and muscle) shows promising results in terms of safety, reduction of postoperative pain, and functional outcome compared with placebo.

Background: Degenerative lumbar spine disease can lead to lumbar spine instability. Lumbar spine instability is defined as an abnormal response to applied loads characterized kinematically by abnormal movement in the motion segment beyond normal constraints. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically present with low back pain (LBP), cramping, cauda equine syndrome, and signs of nerve root compression associated by weakness, numbness and tingling in their legs that are worsened with standing and walking. This degenerative condition severely restricts function, walking ability, and quality of life (QOL). Objectives: This study aims to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with posterior instrumentation in the treatment of LSS and degenerative instability. Study Design: A randomized, prospective, controlled clinical study. Methods: In this prospective study, 88 patients with LSS and degenerative instability were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups: PLF (Group I) or PLIF (Group II). Primary outcomes were the control of LBP and radicular pain, evaluated with visual analog scale (VAS), the improvement of QOL assessed by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scale, and measurement of fusion rate, Cobb angle, spinal sagittal balance, and modic changes in the 2 groups. Results: At 24 months postoperatively, the mean reduction in VAS scores in Group I was more than in Group II (5.67 vs. 5.48, respectively) and the patients in Group I had more improvement in the ODI score than the patients in Group II (42.75 vs. 40.94, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative sagittal balance in the 2 groups. The mean Cobb angle changed significantly in the 2 groups. Limitations: There are few prospective studies of PLIF or PLF in patients with LSS and degenerative lumbar spine instability, and a limited number of studies which exists have examined the safety and outcome of each procedure without comparing it with other fusion techniques. Because most of the studies in the literature have been conducted in the patients with IS, we could not compare and contrast our findings with studies in patients with LSS and degenerative lumbar spine instability. In addition, although in our study the findings at a 24-month follow-up period showed that PLF was better than PLIF in these patients, there were some studies in which the authors reported that PLIF showed better clinical results than PLF at a 48-month followup period. So we suggest that rigorous controlled trials at longer follow-up periods should be undertaken in groups of patients with LSS and degenerative lumbar spine instability who undergo posterior decompression and instrumented fusion to help to determine the ultimate best fusion technique for these patients. Conclusion: PLF with posterior instrumentation provides better clinical outcomes and improvement in the LBP, radicular pain, and functional QOL, more correction of the Cobb angle, more restoration of sagittal alignment, more decrease in Modic type 1, and more increase in Modic type 0, despite the low fusion rate compared to PLIF. Key words: Lumbar spinal stenosis, degenerative instability, posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, low back pain, quality of life, cobb angle, fusion rate, mobic changes, sagittal balance

No abstract

No abstract

Our findings suggest that decompression and posterior fusion in the patients with DS is an effective surgical method which is associated with satisfying clinical results in terms of improvement of postoperative LBP, radicular pain, and QOL, and correction of Cobb angle at 12 and 24 months after the surgery and restoration of sagittal alignment at 2 months postoperatively.

We read with interest the systematic review of Shen et al (1) on "Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review." The authors have systematically reviewed the published literature on the subject of the clinical outcomes of spinal decompression with or without spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) to compare the efficacy of decompression alone and spinal fusion (1). They conducted a systematic electronic search from March 1976 to August 2016. The search analyzed a total of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2-6) assessing the comparison between decompression and fusion surgery for DLSS, and 19 articles have been included in the reference list. On the basis of the results of Shen et al's study (1), additional fusion surgery seems unlikely to result in better outcomes for patients with DLSS, but it may increase additional risks and costs. We would like to voice some concerns regarding the methodology and results of this review. It seems that the objective of the current systematic review, published in 2018, is the duplication of what has been reported in an article published by Wu et al (7) in 2016 in the Journal of Evidence Based Medicine. Surprisingly, Shen et al (1) have reviewed the findings of 5 RCTs (2-6). Of these 5 studies (2-6), the findings of 4 studies, including Grob et al (3), Hallett et al (4), Ghogawala et al (5), Försth et al (6), had been already reported by Wu et al (7) in a commentary entitled "A Rethink of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis", and the only study (2) which had not been reported by Wu et al (7) was an old study published in 1991 on "Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis." How to choose decompression alone or decompression plus fusion has been an old and persistent issue (3,4,8). Bae et al (9) in 2013 and Jancuska et al (10) in 2016 reported that the rate of decompression alone for lumbar stenosis was decreased, whereas the rate of decompression plus fusion was increased (9,10). However, these findings are in contrast to the findings

No abstract