Wilco Jacobs

Fusion for low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the literature.

The objective of this study was to evaluate which fusion technique provides the best clinical and radiological outcome for adult low-grade lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and to assess the overall clinical and radiological outcome of each fusion technique. A systematic review was performed. Medline, Embase, Current Contents, and Cochrane databases as well as reference lists of selected articles were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used to evaluate the best treatment; controlled studies and non-controlled studies were used to determine the outcomes after surgery. Two independent reviewers evaluated the studies with the methodological checklists of van Tulder and Jadad for the randomised studies and of Cowley for the non-randomised studies. The search resulted in 684 references and eventually 29 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which eight were RCTs, four were prospective, and 17 were retrospective case series. Ten of the case series did not clearly identify consecutive patient selection. All the eight RCTs evaluated the effect of different techniques of posterolateral fusion (PLF). Evidence was found that the PLF was superior to non-operative treatment (exercise). Circumferential fusion was compared to PLF, but no difference could be found. PLF with or without instrumentation was evaluated in three studies, but no benefits from additional instrumentation were found. Other comparisons within PLF showed no effect of decompression, alternative instrumentation, or bone graft substitute. The 21 case series included 24 patient groups. PLF was used in 15 groups, good or excellent clinical outcome varied from 60 to 98% and fusion rate varied from 81 to 100%. Anterior interbody fusion was used in five groups, good or excellent clinical outcome varied from 85 to 94% and fusion rate varied from 47 to 90%. Posterior interbody fusion was used in two groups, good or excellent clinical outcome was 45% and fusion rate was 80 and 95%, respectively. Reduction, loss of reduction, and lordotic angles before and after the treatment was reported in only four studies. Average reduction achieved was 12.3%, average loss of reduction at follow-up was 5.9%. Preoperative lordotic angles were too heterogeneous to pool the results. Adjacent segment degeneration was not reported in any of the publications. A wide variety of complications were reported in 18 studies and included neurological complications, instrument failure, and infections. Fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis has better outcomes than non-operative treatment. The current study could not identify the best surgical technique (PLF, PLIF, ALIF, instrumentation) to perform the fusion. However, instrumentation and/or decompression may play a beneficial role in the modern practice of reduction and fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis, but there are no studies yet available to confirm this. The outcomes of fusion are generally good, but reports vary widely.

Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: background and a systematic review of the literature

Abstract. In this paper the rationale for total disc replacement is discussed, and the authors suggest seven requirements that should be met before the implantation of these devices can be accepted as regular procedures. In an attempt to answer the questions raised, a systematic literature search was performed. The search yielded no controlled trials and nine case series with a total of 564 arthroplasties in 411 patients. The devices used were SB Charité in eight and Acroflex in one study. The percentage results classified as “good” or “excellent” in the studies varied from 50 to 81%. Complications were observed in 3–50% of the patients. Twenty-two of the operated levels were fused either spontaneously or after additional surgery. A meta-analysis to compare the results with other treatments could not be performed due to the lack of comparative studies. Despite the fact that these devices have been implanted for almost 15 years, on the basis of this literature survey there are currently insufficient data to assess the performance of total disc replacement adequately. There is no evidence that disc replacement reliably, reproducibly, and over longer periods of time fulfils the three primary aims of clinical efficacy, continued motion, and few adjacent segment degenerative problems. Total disc replacement seems to be associated with a high rate of re-operations, and the potential problems that may occur with longer follow-up have not been addressed. Therefore, total disc replacements should be considered experimental procedures and should only be used in strict clinical trials.

Retention versus removal of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement: A systematic literature review within the Cochrane framework

Background There is no consensus as to whether to use a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retaining design or a posterior-stabilized design for total knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to establish the difference in functional, clinical, and radiological outcome between retention and removal of the PCL. Methods We conducted a search in Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, and Current Contents, along with reference checks and citation tracking. Randomized controlled trials were selected and methodological quality was assessed with the van Tulder and Jadad checklists by 2 independent reviewers. Results We found 8 randomized controlled trials. 2 treatment options were compared against PCL retention: PCL removal without post and cam mechanism (2 studies), and posterior-stabilized design (5 studies). 1 study included all 3 options. Range of motion was found to be 8° higher (105° vs. 113°) in the posterior-stabilized group compared to the PCL retention group (p = 0.01, 95% CI (1.7, 15)). Interpretation These results should be interpreted with caution, as the methodological quality of the studies was highly variable. Suggestions are given to improve future research on this specific aspect of knee arthroplasty.   ▪

Lumbar Discography: Should We Use Prophylactic Antibiotics?: A Study of 435 Consecutive Discograms and a Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: Lumbar discography can be used in the diagnostic work-up of degenerative spine disease. The most serious complication is discitis, believed to be due to penetration of the disc by a needle contaminated with skin flora. The use of prophylactic antibiotics has been advocated, although there is great concern regarding their efficacy and possible adverse effects on disc cells. Methods: In the current study, the incidence of postdiscography discitis without the use of prophylactic antibiotics was studied in a consecutive patient group. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed using strict criteria: 1) Discography was performed by means of a two-needle technique, 2) complications such as discitis were specifically looked for at follow-up, and 3) the exact numbers of patients and those lost to follow-up were reported. Results: The clinical results of 200 patients with 100% follow-up for a minimum period of 3 months showed no case of discitis. In the literature review, 10 studies were selected. Nine studies without prophylactic antibiotics reported an overall incidence of 12 cases in 4891 patients (0.25%) or 12,770 discs (0.094%). The only study with prophylactic antibiotics (127 patients) showed no case of discitis. Conclusions: Regarding the small number of patients in the only study in which antibiotics were used and the overall low incidence of postdiscography discitis, not enough evidence was found that prophylactic antibiotics can prevent discitis. It was concluded that in lumbar discography by means of a two-needle technique without prophylactic antibiotics, the risk of postdiscography discitis is minimal and there is not enough support from the literature to justify the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics.

A systematic literature review to identify the best method for a single level anterior cervical interbody fusion

Abstract The goal of this systematic literature review was to determine, for patients with degenerative disc disease, which method of single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion using the anterior approach gives the best clinical and radiological outcome. The number of new techniques for obtaining a solid fusion has increased rapidly, but the rationale for choosing between different techniques is unclear. Randomised comparative studies on anterior cervical interbody fusions were identified in a sensitive Medline, Cochrane and Current Contents database search. Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles that met the selection criteria, using a checklist. The search yielded eight randomised, controlled trials for the systematic literature review. Three of these studies were judged to be of sufficient quality with regard to methodology and the information provided. In the three articles, five different treatment methods were investigated, four of which were interbody fusions. Fusion rates varied between 28% for an allograft method and 63% for a discectomy-alone method. In one study, kyphosis varied from 40% to 62% between treatments. Good clinical outcome (disability, pain and symptoms) ratings varied from 66% to 82%. A meta-analysis to determine the best method for an anterior interbody fusion could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the methods reported and because no standard outcome parameter was used. From this systematic literature review, a gold standard for the treatment of degenerative disc disease could not be identified.

Systematic review of anterior interbody fusion techniques for single- and double-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Study Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Objective. To determine which technique of anterior cervical interbody fusion (ACIF) gives the best outcome in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease. Summary of Background Data. The number of surgical techniques for decompression and ACIF as treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease has increased rapidly, but the rationale for the choice between different techniques remains unclear. Methods. From a comprehensive search, we selected randomized studies that compared anterior cervical decompression and ACIF techniques, in patients with chronic single- or double-level degenerative disc disease or disc herniation. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane back review group. Results. Thirty-three studies with 2267 patients were included. The major treatments were discectomy alone and addition of an ACIF procedure (graft, cement, cage, and plates). At best, there was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference in pain relief between the techniques. We found moderate quality evidence for few secondary outcomes. Odoms criteria were not different between iliac crest autograft and a metal cage (risk ratio [RR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99–1.24). Bone graft produced more fusion than discectomy (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.17–0.48). Complication rates were not different between discectomy and iliac crest autograft (RR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.71–3.43). Low-quality evidence was found that iliac crest autograft results in better fusion than a cage (RR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.10–3.17); but more complications (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12–0.92). Conclusion. When fusion of the motion segment is considered to be the working mechanism for pain relief and functional improvement, iliac crest autograft appears to be the golden standard. When ignoring fusion rates and looking at complication rates, a cage as a golden standard has a weak evidence base over iliac crest autograft, but not over discectomy.

Good Outcome and Restoration of Lordosis After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Additional Posterior Fixation

Study Design. Fifty-two patients with degenerative disc disease underwent single- or double-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with SynCage and additional posterior fixation as treatment for degenerative disc disease and were prospectively followed for 4 years. Objectives. To test the clinical performance of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with SynCage, with emphasis on the safety and efficacy of the surgical procedure and the ability to restore anatomy and fuse the motion segment. Summary of Background Data. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using femoral allograft and/or autologous bone has a high complication rate. With cage technology, some of these complications can be avoided. The design characteristics of the SynCage offer advantages in restoring and maintaining intervertebral height and restoration of lumbar lordosis. Methods. Thirty-three patients underwent single-level and 19 patients double-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with SynCage and additional posterior fixation (translaminar screws, n = 32 or pedicle screws, n = 10). Radiologic and functional results (VAS and Oswestry score) were evaluated. Results. Intervertebral height was corrected from an average of 8.7 to 17.6 mm. Lordosis of the fused segment was significantly increased (average 10.6° for the fused segment and 8° for lumbosacral lordosis). After 2 years, there was radiologic evidence for fusion in 70 of 71 (98.6%) levels. Functional scores showed a significant improvement in pain and function up to the 2-year follow-up observation. At the 4-year follow-up observation, there was some loss of the initial improvement in VAS and Oswestry scores. Despite this loss, they remained significantly better than the preoperative scores. Conclusions. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with SynCage and additional posterior fixation is a safe and effective procedure. Intervertebral height is corrected, and lumbosacral lordosis is restored. An initial improvement in VAS and Oswestry scores is partly lost at the 4-year follow-up observation, but 4-year results are still significantly better than the preoperative scores.

A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain

Background and purpose — Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set. Patients and methods — An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions. Results — Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on pre-existing tools. Interpretation — The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient’s entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver.

Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial.

Objective To assess whether interspinous process device implantation is more effective in the short term than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) in the Netherlands. Participants 203 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group between October 2008 and September 2011; 159 participants with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized. Interventions 80 participants received an interspinous process device and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. Main outcome measures The primary outcome at short term (eight weeks) and long term (one year) follow-up was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score. Repeated measurements were made to compare outcomes over time. Results At eight weeks, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the interspinous process device group (63%, 95% confidence interval 51% to 73%) was not superior to that for standard bony decompression (72%, 60% to 81%). No differences in disability (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; P=0.44) or other outcomes were observed between groups during the first year. The repeat surgery rate in the interspinous implant group was substantially higher (n=21; 29%) than that in the conventional group (n=6; 8%) in the early post-surgical period (P<0.001). Conclusions This double blinded study could not confirm the hypothesized short term advantage of interspinous process device over conventional “simple” decompression and even showed a fairly high reoperation rate after interspinous process device implantation. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register NTR1307.

Total disc replacement for chronic discogenic low back pain: a Cochrane review.

Study Design. Systematic literature review. Objective. To assess the effect of total disc replacement for chronic low back pain due to lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with fusion or other treatment options. Summary of Background Data. There is an increasing use in disc replacement devices for degenerative disc disease, but their effectiveness compared with other interventions such as fusion of the motion segment or conservative treatment remains unclear. Methods. A comprehensive search in PubMedCentral, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and FDA trials register was conducted. Randomized controlled trials comparing total disc replacement with any other intervention for degenerative disc disease were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Results and upper bounds of confidence intervals were compared with predefined clinically relevant differences. Results. We included 7 randomized controlled trials with a follow-up of 24 months. There is risk of bias in the included studies due to sponsoring and absence of any kind of blinding. One study compared disc replacement with rehabilitation and found a significant advantage in favor of surgery, which, however, did not reach the predefined threshold. Six studies compared disc replacement with fusion and found that the mean improvement in visual analogue scale score of back pain was 5.2 mm higher (2 studies; 95% confidence interval 0.2–10.3) with a low quality of evidence. The improvement of Oswestry disability index score at 24 months in the disc replacement group was 4.3 points more than in the fusion group (5 studies; 95% confidence interval 1.85–6.68) with a low quality of evidence. Both upper bounds of the confidence intervals were below the predefined clinically relevant difference. Conclusion. Although statistically significant, the differences in clinical improvement were not beyond generally accepted boundaries for clinical relevance. Prevention of adjacent level disease and/or facet joint degeneration was not properly assessed. Therefore, because we think that harm and complications may occur after some years, the spine surgery community should be prudent to adopt this technology on a large scale, despite the fact that total disc replacement seems to be effective in treating low back pain in selected patients, and in the short term is at least equivalent to fusion surgery.