Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the results of cervical laminectomy (CL) performed with ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) or conventional method (CM). Method: This study comprised 311 CL performed by a single surgeon between January 2004 and December 2017. Group A (GpA) comprised 124 cases of CL performed using UBS, while Group B (GpB) comprised 187 cases of CL performed using CM. These 2 groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics of patients, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, and surgical complications. Results: GpA included 112 males and 12 females, mean age being 61.18 years. GpB comprised 166 males and 21 females, mean age being 62.04 years. Mean duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay was 65.52/70.87 minutes, 90.24/98.40 mL, and 4.80/4.87 days in GpA and GpB, respectively. Six patients were reported to have dural injuries in each group. In GpA, 2 cases of C5 palsy and 1 nerve root injury was observed, while in GpB, 3 cases of C5 palsy and no nerve root injury was reported. One patient had developed transient neurological deterioration postsurgery in GpA as against 11 patients in GpB. Conclusion: Neurological complications observed in CM leads to intensive care unit admission, additional morbidity, and additional expenditure, whereas UBS provides a safe, rapid, and effective means of performing CL, thereby decreasing the rate of surgical complications and postoperative morbidity.
We aim to present the current evidence on various risk factors and surgical treatment modalities for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH). Using PubMed, a literature search was performed using the Mesh terms "recurrent disc prolapse," "herniated lumbar disc," "risk factors," and "treatment." Articles that were published between January 2010 and May 2017 were selected for further screening. A search conducted through PubMed identified 213 articles that met the initial screening criteria. Detailed analyses showed that 34 articles were eligible for inclusion in this review. Sixteen articles reported the risk factors associated with rLDH. Decompression alone as a treatment option was studied in seven articles, while 11 articles focused on different types of fusion surgery (anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF], and minimally invasive surgery-TLIF). Management of the rLDH requires consideration of the possible risk factors present in individual patients before primary and at the time of second surgery. Both, minimally invasive and conventional open procedures are comparably effective in relieving leg pain, and minimally invasive techniques offer advantage over the other technique in terms of tissue sparing. Non-fusion surgeries involve the risk of lumbar disc herniation re-recurrence, and the patient may require a third (fusion) surgery.
Objective: Executions of indications/extended indications are associated with higher than normal rates of symptomatic recurrences and treatment failures, especially for novice surgeons incorporating Percutaneous Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy/decompression (PTELD) techniques. Causes of failures can be manifold and can occur because of a residual or a complete fragment causing persistent compression or associated unaddressed stenosis. To prevent this problem, proper training, multiple instrument inventory, variable techniques are needed with progressive learning. Authors aim to suggest objective and subjective criteria to define end-points/adequacy of decompression (EPD).Methods: PubMed database search was limited to locate only adequacy of decompression of PTELD and thus included specific keywords: “ENDPOINT” OR “ADEQUATE” AND “DECOMPRESSION” AND “TRANSFORAMINAL” AND “ENDOSCOPY”. Authors added their experience to refine and define multiple EPD.Results: In the search we found 12 articles total. Upon reviewing these, we found 7 articles matching our criteria. Cross references of included articles were searched, 5 additional articles were included. EPD were described in only 9 articles. Author’s experience with other relevant references were added to complete the viewpoint (EPD, n=29). Direct observed/ provoked EPD and inferred EPD were defined separately. Videos, illustrations and descriptions of each EPD are illustrated to provide the ideation.Conclusion: EPD are variable and not all signs may be elicited in every case and may change with surgeon experience. The ability to recognize EPD is the crux for successful outcomes and maximum possible EPD’s should be aimed in every surgery to avoid failures.
Background: Degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common spinal pathology. Traditionally, spinal fusion is an accepted standard surgical treatment for listhesis. But fusion is a major intervention with its known pitfalls. With technological progression, minimally invasive spinal fusion (MISF) procedures are becoming mainstream. Percutaneous trans-foraminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy/decompressions (PTELD) without stabilization has many advantages over even a MISF for select group of patients. Case presentation: In this case report, we describe using a uniportal unilateral trans-foraminal approach (TFA) for stable listhesis with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) causing chronic bilateral radicular symptoms and back pain with acute exacerbation. Under local anesthesia, we used a flat entry for PTELD, which facilitates an approach to both disc sides ventrally and even dorsal aspect lateral recess decompression on the dominant ipsilateral side. No fixation was done. An excellent outcome is obtained immediately at 6 weeks and maintained at 39 months of follow-up. Conclusion: PTELD is worth considering as an intermediate procedure before fusion is offered in lateral recess stenosis in stable listhesis patients who have consented and understand the progressive cascade of spinal degeneration.
To determine the effect of axial loading on the cervical spine when weights are carried on the head. Overview of Literature: Traditionally, carrying weights on the head has been a common practice in developing countries. The laborers working in agriculture, construction, and other industries, as well as porters at railway platforms, are required to lift heavy weights. Since controversy exists regarding carrying weights on the head, we decided to evaluate its effect on the cervical spine. Methods: The study comprised 62 subjects. Of this number, 32 subjects (group A) were unskilled laborers from the construction industry; the other 30 subjects (group B) were in the control group and had never previously carried heavy weights on their heads. Cervical spine radiographs were taken for all the 62 subjects. Subjects in group A were asked to carry a load (approximately 35 kg) on their heads and walk for about 65 m, with their cervical spine radiographs taken afterward. Results: The mean ages of patients in groups A and B were 27.17 and 25.75 years, respectively. The mean cervical lordosis observed in group A (18.96°) was dramatically less compared with group B (25.40°), showing a further decrease in head loading (3.35°). Five subjects had a reversal of lordosis (−5.61°). A statistically significant reduction in disc height and listhesis was observed when the load was carried on the head with a further decrease after walking with the load. Accelerated degenerative changes, particularly affecting the upper cervical spine, were observed in head loaders. Conclusions: Carrying a load on the head leads to accelerated degenerative changes, which involve the upper cervical spine more than the lower cervical spine and predisposes it to injury at a lower threshold. Thus, alternative methods of carrying loads should be proposed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.