RESUMO
The advent of ultra-minimally invasive endoscopic spine surgery, characterized by significantly reduced surgery times, minimal blood loss, and minimal tissue trauma, has precipitated a paradigm shift in the preoperative management of patients with cardiac disease undergoing elective spine procedures. This perspective article explores how these advancements have influenced the requirements for preoperative cardiac workups and the protocols surrounding the cessation of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies. Traditionally, extensive cardiac evaluations and the need to stop anticoagulation and antiplatelet agents have posed challenges, increasing the risk of cardiac events and delaying surgical interventions. However, the reduced invasiveness of endoscopic spine surgery presents a safer profile for patients with cardiac comorbidities, potentially minimizing the necessity for rigorous cardiac clearance and allowing for more flexible anticoagulation management. This perspective article synthesizes current research and clinical practices to provide a comprehensive overview of these evolving protocols. It also discusses the implications of these changes for patient safety, surgical outcomes, and overall healthcare efficiency. Finally, the article suggests directions for future research, emphasizing the need for updated guidelines that reflect the reduced perioperative risk associated with these innovative surgical techniques. This discussion is pivotal for primary care physicians, surgeons, cardiologists, and the broader medical community in optimizing care for this high-risk patient population.
RESUMO
Background: Seizures, neurological deficits, bradycardia, and, in the worst cases, cardiac arrest may occur following incidental durotomy during routine lumbar endoscopy. Therefore, we set out to measure the intraoperative epidural pressure during lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to obtain intraoperative epidural measurements with an epidural catheter-pressure transducer assembly through the spinal endoscope on 15 patients who underwent lumbar endoscopic decompression of symptomatic lumbar herniated discs and spinal stenosis. The endoscopic interlaminar technique was employed. Results: There were six (40.0%) female and nine (60.0%) male patients aged 49.0667 ± 11.31034, ranging from 36 to 72 years, with an average follow-up of 35.15 ± 12.48 months. Three of the fifteen patients had seizures with durotomy and one of these three had intracranial air on their postoperative brain CT. Another patient developed spinal headaches and diplopia on postoperative day one when her deteriorating neurological function was investigated with a brain computed tomography (CT) scan, showing an intraventricular hemorrhage consistent with a Fisher Grade IV subarachnoid hemorrhage. A CT angiogram did not show any abnormalities. Pressure recordings in the epidural space in nine patients ranged from 20 to 29 mm Hg with a mean of 24.33 mm Hg. Conclusion: Most incidental durotomies encountered during lumbar interlaminar endoscopy can be managed without formal repair and supportive care measures. The intradural spread of irrigation fluid and intraoperatively used drugs and air entrapment through an unrecognized durotomy should be suspected if patients deteriorate in the recovery room. Ascending paralysis may cause nausea, vomiting, upper and lower motor neuron symptoms, cranial nerve palsies, hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory and cardiac arrest. The recovery team should be prepared to manage these complications.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Casually cauterizing the radicular magna during routine thoracic discectomy may have dire consequences. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study on patients scheduled for decompression of symptomatic thoracic herniated discs and spinal stenosis who underwent a preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) to assess the surgical risks by anatomically defining the foraminal entry level of the magna radicularis artery into the thoracic spinal cord and its relationship to the surgical level. RESULTS: Fifteen patients aged 58.53 ± 19.57, ranging from 31 to 89 years, with an average follow-up of 30.13 ± 13.42 months, were enrolled in this observational cohort study. The mean preoperative VAS for axial back pain was VAS of 8.53 ± 2.06 and reduced to a postoperative VAS of 1.60 ± 0.92 (p < 0.0001) at the final follow-up. The Adamkiewicz was most frequently found at T10/11 (15.4%), T11/12 (23.1%), and T9/10 (30.8%). There were eight patients where the painful pathology was found far from the AKA foraminal entry-level (type 1), three patients with near location (type 2), and another four patients needing decompression at the foraminal (type 3) entry-level. In five of the fifteen patients, the magna radicularis entered the spinal canal on the ventral surface of the exiting nerve root through the neuroforamen at the surgical level requiring a change of surgical strategy to prevent injury to this important contributor to the spinal cord's blood supply. CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend stratifying patients according to the proximity of the magna radicularis artery to the compressive pathology with CTA to assess the surgical risk with targeted thoracic discectomy methods.
RESUMO
International collaborations can be the key to overcoming innovation implementation hurdles. The authors report on a joint symposium between the International Society For The Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) and La Sociedad Iberolatinoamerica de Columna (SILACO), and La Sociedad Interamericana de Cirurgia de columna de Minima invasión (SICCMII) aimed at improving joint surgeon education programs. The symposium highlighted that patient-related spine care issues are similar across geographical, cultural, and language barriers. The sustainability of such programs depends on funding and mutually respectful relationships orchestrated by multi-lingual leaders who will bridge gaps created by geographical, cultural, and language barriers to effectively develop clinical research content focused on advancing surgeon education and improving patient outcomes across the Americas.
RESUMO
Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: While low back pain is one of the most prevalent, if not the most prevalent reasons for visits to physicians, a majority of patients with low back pain cannot be given a definitive diagnosis. While there have been substantial advances in imaging technologies over the past 30 years, relatively little has changed in the methodologies for evaluating functionality of the lumbar spine. The current standard of care for function assessment of the lumbar spine focuses on uncontrolled patient directed motion which results in increased inter-patient variability. Recent advancements in functional lumbar spine testing utilize controlled bending and computerized imaging evaluation. PURPOSE: To compare the measurement variability of lumbar spine motion when diagnosed using measurements of intervertebral motion taken from standard bending flexion/extension radiographs (FE) between uncontrolled and controlled motion. STUDY DESIGN: One-hundred nine patients (57 asymptomatic, 52 symptomatic) were consented in the prospective investigation. The research was designed to compare studies involving FE to controlled motion bending radiographs using the Vertebral Motion Analysis (VMA), (Ortho Kinematics, Inc) within the same patient. Each patient agreed to undergo fluoroscopic still imaging to capture FE data and to undergo cine fluoroscopic imaging to capture VMA data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Measurement variability was determined by the mean and standard deviation of intervertebral rotation when evaluated by 5 independent observers evaluating each of the 109 patients FE and VMA. The resulting standard deviation of the intervertebral rotation determinations was used as the measure of variability. METHODS: The VMA measurements for assessing intervertebral motion were characterized by the use of: (1) a handling device that assists patients through a standard arc of lumbar bending in both an upright and recumbent posture (70 degree flexion/extension arcs; 60 degree left/right bending arcs); (2) video fluoroscopy imaging of the lumbar spine during bending (capturing images at 8 frames per second); and (3) image processing software capable of automatic frame-to-frame registration and tracking of vertebral bodies across the sequence of video-fluoroscopic images to derive measurements of intervertebral rotation and translation. The FE data were assessed from voluntary bending by the patient. RESULTS: There was statistical greater measurement variability in intervertebral rotation in FE when compared to VMA (both standing and lying). When comparing measurement variability between FE and VMA, results indicate between a 26% to 46% decrease in measurement variability under VMA compared to FE. These findings are consistent across asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current standard of care for functional testing of the lumbar spine utilizes uncontrolled FE with a manual data evaluation process. Recent developments in using computerized imaging processes has improved, however there remains variability in patient bending due to the self-selected rate and position of the bending. VMA results in a significant reduction in measurement variability of intervertebral rotation measurements.