Study Design. Isolation and characterization of human epidural fat (HEF) stem/progenitor cells. Objective. To identify a progenitor population within HEF and to determine if they meet the minimal criteria of a mesenchymal stem cell (MSC). Summary of Background Data. The biological function, if any, has yet to be determined for HEF. The presence of MSCs within HEF may indicate a regenerative potential within the HEF. Methods. HEF was isolated from 10 patients during elective spinal surgery. HEF cells were differentiated along osteo-, adipo-, and chondrogenic lineages, with differentiation analyzed via qPCR and histology. The cell surface receptor profile of HEF cells was examined by flow cytometry. HEF cells were also assayed through the collagen contraction assay. Prx1CreERT2GFP:R26RTdTomato MSC lineage-tracking mice were employed to identify EF MSCs in vivo. Results. HEF cell lines were obtained from all 10 patients in the study. Cells from 2/10 patients demonstrated full MSC potential, while cells from 6/10 patients demonstrated progenitor potential; 2/10 patients presented with cells that retained only adipogenic potential. HEF cells demonstrated MSC surface marker expression. All patient cell lines contracted collagen gels. A Prx1-positive population in mouse epidural fat that appeared to contribute to the dura of the spinal cord was observed in vivo. Conclusions. MSC and progenitor populations are present within HEF. MSCs were not identified in all patients examined in the current study. Furthermore, all patient lines demonstrated collagen contraction capacity, suggesting either a contaminating activated fibroblast population or HEF MSCs/progenitors also demonstrating a fibroblast-like phenotype. In vivo analysis suggests that these cell populations may contribute to the dura. Overall, these results suggest that cells within epidural fat may play a biological role within the local environment above providing a mechanical buffer.

Study Design: Uncontrolled retrospective observational study. Objectives: Surgery for patients with back pain and degenerative disc disease is controversial, and studies to date have yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the effects of lumbar fusion surgery for patients with this indication in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). Methods: We analyzed data that were prospectively collected from consecutive patients at 11 centers between 2015 and 2019. Our primary outcome was change in patient-reported back pain at 12 months of follow-up, and our secondary outcomes were satisfaction, disability, health-related quality of life, and rates of adverse events. Results: Among 84 patients, we observed a statistically significant improvement of back pain at 12 months that exceeded the threshold of Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) (mean change -3.7 points, SD 2.6, p < 0.001, MCID = 1.2; 77% achieved MCID), and 81% reported being “somewhat” or “extremely” satisfied. We also observed improvements of Oswestry Disability Index (-17.3, SD 16.6), Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (10.3, SD 9.6) and Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary (3.1, SD 8.3); all p < 0.001). The overall rate of adverse events was 19%. Conclusions: Among a highly selective group of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease, most experienced a clinically significant improvement of back pain as well as significant improvements of disability and health-related quality of life, with high satisfaction at 1 year of follow-up. These findings suggest that surgery for this indication may provide some benefit, and that further research is warranted.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: We evaluated the effectiveness of minimally invasive (MIS) tubular discectomy in comparison to conventional open surgery among patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). Methods: We performed an observational analysis of data that was prospectively collected. We implemented Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs), and we adjusted for potential confounders with multiple logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity (SAVES) protocol. Results: Three hundred thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent MIS tubular discectomy and 211 (38%) underwent conventional open discectomy. There were no significant differences between groups for improvement of leg pain and disability, but the MIS technique was associated with reduced odds of achieving the MCID for back pain (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99, P < 0.05). We identified statistically significant differences in favor of MIS for each of operating time (MIS mean (SD) 72.2 minutes (30.0) vs open 93.5 (40.9)), estimated blood loss (MIS 37.9 mL (36.7) vs open 76.8 (71.4)), length of stay in hospital (MIS 73% same-day discharge vs open 40%), rates of incidental durotomy (MIS 4% vs open 8%), and wound-related complications (MIS 3% vs open 9%); but not for overall rates of reoperation. Conclusions: Open and MIS techniques yielded similar improvements of leg pain and disability at up to 12 months of follow-up, but MIS patients were less likely to experience improvement of associated back pain. Small differences favored MIS for operating time, blood loss, and adverse events but may have limited clinical importance.