Onyedimma, Chiduziem

OBJECTIVE Surgical decompression is often indicated for symptomatic cases of cervical radiculopathy. In the cervical spine, minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) and the anterior transcorporeal approach (ATCA) are modern techniques available to surgeons. This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis aimed to assess surgical and patient-reported outcomes of MIS-PCF and ATCA for cervical radiculopathy. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was conducted using 1) Ovid; 2) Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and 3) Scopus databases, which reported outcomes following cervical decompression using MIS-PCF or the ATCA. Specifically, baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, and changes in visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score were assessed. The quality of the studies was graded using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS Forty studies with 1661 patients were identified. The comparative analysis of both techniques revealed no significant differences in complication (7%, 95% CI 5%–10%, p = 0.75) or reoperation rates (5%, 95% CI 3%–7%, p = 0.41). Additionally, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss (55.39, 95% CI 44.62–66.16 ml, p = 0.55) or operative time (85.15, 95% CI 65.38–104.92 minutes, p = 0.05). The ATCA showed significantly greater improvement (p < 0.01) in VAS neck pain scores following surgery (ATCA point reduction 6.7, 95% CI 6.0–7.5 points vs MIS-PCF 3.0, 95% CI 1.0–5.0 points). CONCLUSIONS The ATCA and MIS-PCF are effective modern techniques for the surgical treatment of radiculopathy. Both approaches showed comparable postoperative outcomes, including complication and reoperation rates. However, the ATCA was shown to provide significantly greater improvement in VAS neck pain scores.

OBJECTIVE Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies. METHODS Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]). RESULTS A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84–1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02–0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.

Study Design Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Objective The purpose of this study is to synthesize recommendations for perioperative medical management of RA patients and quantify outcomes after spine surgery when compared to patients without RA. Methods A search of available literature on patients with RA and spine surgery was performed. Studies were included if they provided a direct comparison of outcomes between patients undergoing spine surgery with or without RA diagnosis. Meta-analysis was performed on operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, overall complications, implant-related complications, reoperation, infection, pseudarthrosis, and adjacent segment disease. Results Included in the analysis were 9 studies with 703 patients with RA undergoing spine surgery and 2569 patients without RA. In RA patients compared to non-RA patients undergoing spine surgery, the relative risk of infection was 2.29 times higher (P = .036), overall complications 1.61 times higher (P < .0001), implant-related complications 3.93 times higher (P = .009), and risk of reoperation 2.45 times higher (P < .0001). Hospital length of stay was 4.6 days longer in RA patients (P < .0001). Conclusions Treatment of spinal pathology in patients with RA carries an increased risk of infection and implant-related complications. Spine-specific guidelines for perioperative management of antirheumatic medication deserve further exploration. All RA patients should be perioperatively co-managed by a rheumatologist. This review helps identify risk profiles in RA specific to spine surgery and may guide future studies seeking to medically optimize RA patients perioperatively.