Aims

Cervical radiculopathy is a significant cause of pain and morbidity. For patients with severe and poorly controlled symptoms who may not be candidates for surgical management, treatment with transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) has gained widespread acceptance. However, a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting their use balanced against perceived high risks of the procedure potentially undermines the confidence of clinicians who use the technique. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding CTFESI to assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of the procedure.

Introduction:. Circumferential arthrodesis of the spine may be achieved by posterior-only or anterior and posterior surgery. Posterior-based interbody fusions have significant limitations including unreliable improvement of segmental lordosis and variable rates of post-operative radiculopathy. Combined anterior and posterior surgery introduces significant cost and peri-operative morbidity. The purpose of this paper is to report the radiographic and clinical outcomes of posterior-based circumferential arthrodesis using a novel expandable interbody cage. Methods:. A prospective pilot clinical trial with one year follow-up of the only expandable cage approved by the FDA for interbody application. Clinical outcomes measured include ODI and VAS for back and leg. Radiographic outcomes include arthrodesis rates based upon CT scan. Statistical significance for change in health status was calculated using Student's t-test. Results:. 10 consecutive patients (11 levels) with lumbar degenerative pathology underwent circumferential arthrodesis with a transforaminal interbody approach. 10 of 11 levels were fused based upon CT scan. ODI scores improved a median of 37 to 20 at 6 months and 17 at one year (p = 0.0003). The VAS for back and leg pain likewise from 6 to 2 at 12 months (p = −.003). No patient reported an increase in leg pain from pre-op to post-op. One patient with a 2-level fusion had a non-union at 1 level requiring revision surgery. Conclusion:. Circumferential arthrodesis with a TLIF approach is an important technique for the management of lumbar degenerative pathology. The experience with a novel expandable TLIF cage demonstrates excellent results based upon clinical outcome and fusion rates. The expandable interbody cage allows in-situ height increase which is useful for optimizing clinical and radiographic outcomes in TLIF surgery

We performed a prospective study to examine the influence of the patient’s position on the location of the abdominal organs, to investigate the possibility of a true lateral approach for transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Pre-operative abdominal CT scans were taken in 20 patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Axial images in parallel planes of each intervertebral disc from L1 to L5 were achieved in both supine and prone positions. The most horizontal approach angles possible to avoid injury to the abdominal organs were measured. The results demonstrated that the safe approach angles were significantly less (i.e., more horizontal) in the prone than in the supine position. Obstacles to a more lateral approach were mainly the liver, the spleen and the kidneys at L1/2 (39 of 40, 97.5%) and L2/3 (28 of 40, 70.0%), and the intestines at L3/4 (33 of 40, 82.5%) and L4/5 (30 of 30, 100%). A true lateral approach from each side was possible for 30 of the 40 discs at L3/4 (75%) and 23 of the 30 discs at L4/5 (76.7%). We concluded that a more horizontal approach for transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy is possible in the prone position but not in the supine. Prone abdominal CT is more helpful in determining the trajectory of the endoscope. While a true lateral approach is feasible in many patients, our study shows it is not universally applicable.

The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion (presacral ALIF) is not widely reported, particularly with regard to the mid-term outcome. This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes, complications and rates of fusion at a follow-up of two years for 26 patients who underwent this minimally invasive technique along with further stabilisation using pedicle screws. The fusion was single-level at the L5-S1 spinal segment in 17 patients and two-level at L4–5 and L5-S1 in the other nine. The visual analogue scale for pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were recorded pre-operatively and during the 24-month study period. The evaluation of fusion was by thin-cut CT scans at six and 12 months, and flexion-extension plain radiographs at six, 12 and 24 months. Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred as early as three weeks postoperatively and were maintained. Fusion was achieved in 22 of 24 patients (92%) at 12 months and in 23 patients (96%) at 24 months. One patient (4%) with a pseudarthrosis underwent successful revision by augmentation of the posterolateral fusion mass through a standard open midline approach.

There were no severe adverse events associated with presacral ALIF, which in this series demonstrated clinical outcomes and fusion rates comparable with those of reports of other methods of interbody fusion.

Intraspinal re-implantation after traumatic avulsion of the brachial plexus is a relatively new technique. Three different approaches to the spinal cord have been described to date, namely the posterior scapular, anterolateral interscalenic multilevel oblique corpectomy and the pure lateral. We describe an anatomical study of the pure lateral approach, based on our clinical experience and studies on cadavers.

Purpose of the study: The endoscopic transforaminal approach to the lumbar disc proposed by A.T. Yeung has achieved world-wide acceptance. The Yeung endoscopic spinal system (YESS) used with a specific instrument set enables direct magnified optical control of discectomy performed under local anesthesia and neurolepanalgesia in the outpatient setting. We began our experience in 2003 and report here the results obtained in a consecutive series of 100 patients reviewed retrospectively. Material and methods: The inclusion criteria were patients with lumbar disc herniation-related lumbosciatic or crural pain non-responsive to well conducted medical care (including epidural or periradicular injections) for at least three months. The patients also had to display a concordant clinical and radiographic picture with confirmation of the symptomatic level by discography. Exclusion criteria were: excluded herniation with a fragment which had migrated into the canal; caudia equina syndrome; lower limb paralysis with muscle force scored less than 3; advanced-stage degernerative central bony stenosis affecting the clinical expression; pregnancy. The levels treated were: L3–L4 (n=6), L4–L5 (n=72), and L5–S1 (n=22). Herniation was forminal and extraforaminal in 53 cases, posterolateral in 31, and median in 16. There was an associated constitutional central stenosis in ten cases and in thirteen others, herniation was a recurrence after conventional surgery. Results: One hundred patients were reviewed at mean 18 months (range 12–34 months) follow-up. There were no serious neurological, vascular, or infectious complications. According to the McNab criteria outcome was good for 71 cases, fair for 16 and poor for 13 with 11 requiring revision with conventional surgery. Patients with foraminal and extraforminal herniation accounted for more than half of our series and responded best to treatment (84.9% good outcome) compared with posterolateral herniation (48%) (p< 0.05). Patients with median herniation had an intermediary outcome (68% good results). The least satisfactory outcome was observed at the L5–S1 level (63% fair and poor outcome), but the difference did not reach statistical significance compared with the higher levels. In patients with recurrent herniation after conventional surgery, there were four cases of failure. Discussion: These results are less satisfactory than those found in the literature. This might be explained by the less satisfactory outcome obtained with posterolateral herniations, probably because more than halve had migrated, generally above the plane of the disc, which in our experience cannot be accessed via the transforaminal approach. In addition, comparison of our first 50 cases with the last 50 showed an improvement in outcome to a mean 82%, expressing a learning curve for this type of technique. The most frequent error early in our experience was to insert the working endoscopic canula too anteriorly compared with the disc. The point of insertion must be very lateral determined by the discography in order to enter at least 30° posterior to the posterior part of the disc. Progressive fine-tuning of patient selection also helped improve outcome. YESS improves the work of the intradiscal instruments which can be control by direct view, explaining the the better results compared with the older mechanical or automatic (blind) methods. YESS is a very effective alternative to chemonucleolysis since papaine is no longer available. Compared with other endoscopic techniques for disectomy via an interlaminar approach, YESS offers the possibility of treatment patients in an outpatient setting with a local anesthesia. In addition the quality of the visual control of the foramen is better. These methods can be used in association with intradiscal Holmium-Yag laser which can also be applied to the bony walls of the foramen for a widening foraminoplasty. This transformainal endoscopic approach also offers a way to perform an exclusively foraminoscopic spondylodesis using an intersomatic cage. Conclusion: YESS is an excellent technique for non-migrated subligament posterolateral foraminal and extraforaminal herniations where conventional access to the foramen is known to be very difficult