Background and Objective. In industrialized societies, the prevalence of radicular low back pain has exploded in recent years. Lumbar disc prolaps, protrusion, or extrusion account for less than 5% of all low back problems, but are the most common causes of nerve root pain and surgical interventions. The primary rationale for any form of surgery for disc prolaps is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. The primary modality of surgical treatment continues to be either open or microdiscectomy, but several alternative techniques including. Nucleoplasty. It provokes ablation of the nucleus of the disk by a controlled thermal effect produced by radiofrequency. Nucleoplasty is minimally invasive treatment aimed at removing nuclear material and lowering intradiscal pressure and decompressing through coblation needle inserted percutaneously into the nucleus of intervertebral discs. This paper will show a 3 years experience with 110 cases with lumbar radicular pain secondary to a disc protrusion that underwent Nucleoplasty as their secondary therapy. Methods. Included in this series were 110 patients with significant lumbar radicular pain, resistant to interventional therapy done before hand like fluoroscopically guided spinal transforaminal epidural injections or sacral injections with steroids. These cases were done under local anaesthesia with short analgesia and stand by monitoring. Results. In the overall cohort, the average Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score decreased. Conclusions. We conclude that with use of the present selection criteria, Nucleoplasty is very effective long-term treatment for lumbar radicular pain. We recommend modifying the criteria to include only those cases with lumbar radicular pain due to protrusion whose annular integrity is confirmed via MRI and by either selective nerve root blocks and to exclude cases with axial pain

Objectives. The main objective of our study was to determine the treatment effect of corticosteroids in peri-radicular infiltration for radicular pain. We also examined whether there was any effect on the need for subsequent interventions such as additional root blocks and/or surgery. Subjects and Method. In a randomised, double blind controlled trial, 150 eligible patients with radicular pain and unilateral symptoms who failed conservative management were randomised for a single injection with bupivacaine and methylprednisolone (b+s) or bupivacaine (b) alone. The outcome measures used included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS), Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for leg pain and back pain and patient's subjective level of satisfaction of the outcome. Results. We recruited 76 patients in the b only group and 74 patients in the b+s group. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the groups at 3 months (change in ODI [p=0.2], change in VAS [back pain, p=0.28; leg pain, p=0.67]. Subgroup analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the change in scores between the stenotic group and disc herniation group at 3 months. At 1 year follow-up data was available for 86% of the patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of further interventions in either group. Conclusion. Clinical improvement occurs in both groups of patients. Corticosteroids did not provide additional benefit. There is no difference in the need for further root blocks or surgery

The causes of pain after TKA can be local (intra or extra-articular) or referred from a remote source. Local intra-articular causes include prosthetic loosening, infection, aseptic synovitis (wear debris, hemarthrosis, instability, allergy), impingement (bone soft tissue or prosthetic), an un-resurfaced patella and stress fracture of bone or the prosthesis. Some surgeons think that isolated component mal-rotation can be a source of pain, but component mal-rotation is rarely present in the absence of other technical abnormalities. Local extra-articular causes include pes anserine bursitis, saphenous neuroma/dysasthesias, post-tourniquet dysasthesias, complex regional pain syndrome and vascular claudication. Referred pain is most often from an arthritic hip or radicular pain from a spinal source. Patients with fibromyalgia can have persistent pain following their knee arthroplasty and should be warned of this possibility. Evaluation of the patient includes a history, physical exam, joint aspiration and plain radiographs. In selected patients, an anesthetic joint injection, bone scan, CT scan or MRI with metal subtraction may be helpful in the diagnosis. The joint aspiration should include a CBC and differential as well as an aerobic and anaerobic culture. Fungal and TB cultures are sometimes indicated. Re-operation for pain of unknown etiology following TKA is unlikely to yield an excellent result and both surgeons and patients should be aware of this probability

Purpose. Degenerative changes of the lumbar motion segment often lead to stenosis of the spinal canal or neuroforamen. Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) is intended to indirectly increase and stabilize foraminal dimensions by restoring disc height in patients with degenerative disc disease, thereby relieving axial and radicular pain. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of AxiaLIF on anterior disc height, posterior disc height, foraminal height and foraminal width as well as to determine the effectiveness of this minimally-invasive technique for indirect decompression and restoration of disc height. Method. Eighty-one patients who underwent a 360 degree lumbar interbody fusion at L4-S1 and L5-S1 with AxiaLIF between November 2008 and May 2010 and satisfied all inclusion criteria were included. The preoperative and three-month postoperative digital radiographs were reviewed and analyzed. Disc heights were measured in the planes of the anterior and posterior surfaces of the adjacent vertebral bodies. Foraminal height was measured as the maximum distance between the inferior margin of the pedicle of the superior vertebra and the superior margin of the pedicle of the inferior vertebra. Foraminal width was measured as the shortest distance between the edge of the superior facet of the caudal vertebra and the posterior edge of inferior endplate of the cranial vertebra. Potential magnification error between pre- and post-operative radiographs was corrected using the anterior vertebral height of L5 vertebra. Results. Our study shows that there is a mean increase of 42.0% in posterior disc height (PDH) at L4-5 and 21.5% in anterior disc height (ADH) at L4-5 and PDH mean increase of 33.6% and 16.3% in ADH at L5-S1 in two-level AxiaLIF cases. Similarly the mean change in foraminal height (FH) was 12.6% at L4-5 and 10.8% at L5-S1 in 2-levels AxiaLIF. The mean change in foraminal width (FW) at L4-L5 was 19.9% and 29.1% at L5-S1 in 2-levels AxiaLIF. In the single level AxiaLIF group, the mean change in PDH was 43.1%, the ADH change was 17.5%, the average change in FH was 14.4%, and mean change in FW was 25.3%. The change is reflected as a percentage of the preoperative value. All changes from preoperative to postoperative values were statistically significant. Conclusion. AxiaLIF appears to be an effective minimally invasive device to increase disc height and neuroforaminal area. Our findings appear equivalent to anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in terms of indirect decompression and increase in disc height. This, in combination with the added benefit of preserving the annulus, anterior longitudinal ligament, and posterior longitudinal ligament, suggests the AxiaLIF is an excellent alternative for this patient population. However, additional follow-up studies are necessary to confirm the long-term ability of the implant to maintain fusion and preserve the improvements in disc and foraminal area

Introduction. The majority of spine patients present with discogenic low back pain, originating from either degenerative disc disease (DDD) or internal disc disruption (IDD). Successful treatment of this patient population relies on obtaining precision diagnosis and careful patient selection, as well as matching the pathology with reliable technology. Total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative to spinal fusion in the treatment of DDD or IDD, has been studied and reported for several decades in long-term follow-up studies and in several randomized control trials. This prospective study presents a single surgeon experience with two-level CHARITÉ® TDR in 84 consecutive patients, with minimum follow-up of 5 years. The aims of the study were to assess the clinical outcomes of two-level TDR in patients with DDD/IDD. Based on the literature review conducted, this study is considered the largest single surgeon series experience with the two-level CHARITÉ® TDR in the treatment of lumbar DDD, with a minimum follow-up of 5 years reported to date. Materials and Methods. Between January 1997 and March 2006, n=84 consecutive patients underwent two-level TDR for the treatment of two-level DDD or IDD discogenic axial low back pain with or without radicular pain. All patients completed self-assessment outcome questionnaires pre and postoperatively (3, 6, 12 months, and yearly thereafter), including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for back and leg pain. Results. For the n=84 patients, the mean follow-up was 94.34±2.19 months (range = 62–150). The mean age was 49.6±0.94. The mean surgical time was 91±3.16 minutes and the mean blood loss was 207.5±30.62 mls. The main diagnosis was two-level DDD in 63 (76.8%) patients, followed by one-level disc herniation and one-level DDD. Seventy-three (89%) patients underwent L4-5 L5-S1 TDR and 9 (11%) patients underwent L3-4 L4-5 TDR. At all follow-up points, patients demonstrated significant improvement in ODI, RMDQ, and VAS back and leg pain scores compared to pre-operative scores (p < 0.001). The mean improvement between pre-op and last follow-up was 33.3 (66.8%) and 13.23 (74%) for ODI and RMDQ, respectively. Similarly, that was 54.8 (69 %%) and 34.8 (65%) for VAS back and VAS leg pain, respectively. At least 87.8% of the patients rated their satisfaction as good/excellent at any follow-up point. At 5 years follow-up, 54 patients (65.9%) rated their satisfaction as excellent, 19 (23.2%) as good, 7 (8.5%) as satisfactory and 2 (2.4%) as poor. Two patients (2 out of 84, 2.38%) required early revision of one of the prostheses due to failure of indication and/or failure of technique. There has been no device failure. One patient required surgery for adjacent segment disease (1.19%). Conclusion. This study has shown that statistically significant reductions in pain and functional outcomes can be obtained in patients at a minimum follow-up of 5-years following 2-level TDR for the treatment of multilevel DDD or IDD. The clinical benefits of this procedure is supported by the data, with the outcomes reflecting a precision diagnosis, stringent patient selection criteria, and a standardised surgical technique

Aims

To describe the incidence of adverse clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection following corticosteroid injections (CSI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. To describe the incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, positive SARS-COV2 IgG antibody testing or positive imaging findings following CSI at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic.