Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
Eur Spine J ; 33(4): 1340-1346, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38459270

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of strong evidence for use of expensive bone substitutes. This study compares perioperative data and patient reported quality-of-life outcomes across the varied types of bone graft extenders. The study analyzes the existing Quality and Outcomes Database and evaluates patient reported outcomes for 1-3 level lumbar fusion procedures comparing across different types of biologics bone graft. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected data registry. Bone graft implant data were collected and grouped into the following categories: (1) Autograft with basic allograft (2) Enhanced, synthetic, or cellular allograft (3) Use of BMP. Preoperative and 1 year patient reported outcomes and perioperative data from the prospective collected registry were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 384 patients included in this study. There were 168 (43.8%) patients in group 1, 133 (34.6%) patients in group 2, and 83 (21.6%) in group 3. There were no group differences in baseline or 1 year back pain, leg pain, ODI, or EQ-5D. The GLM Repeated Measures results indicate a significant difference within each of the three groups between the preoperative and postoperative measures for back pain, leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D. The change over time was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bone graft extenders are a significant contributor to the cost of lumbar fusion. This study demonstrates no difference in preoperative, and 1 year patient reported outcomes between the three groups. There was no significant difference in rate of reoperations across the three groups.


Subject(s)
Spinal Fusion , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Prospective Studies , Spinal Fusion/methods , Back Pain/surgery , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery
2.
World Neurosurg ; 180: e729-e732, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37806518

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy (MELF) has been proven to be an effective, motion preserving procedure for the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Cervical 4 (C4) radiculopathies are often unrecognized by the initial evaluating physician and may be misdiagnosed as axial neck pain. In this study, we compare MELF to anterior cervical disk fusion (ACDF) for C4 radiculopathy in the largest series of minimally invasive foraminotomy for C4 radiculopathy to date. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective chart review of 42 cases for C4 radiculopathy, 21 MELF and 21 ACDF. Primary outcome measures were length of surgery, length of hospital stay, and time to return to work. Secondary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain and reoperation rate. RESULTS: All patients were diagnosed with a unilateral C4 radiculopathy using magnetic resonance imaging or steroid injections. The length of surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly decreased in the MELF group compared with ACDF. VAS neck pain significantly decreased for patients in both groups, but the difference between MELF and ACDF was not statistically significant. There were no major complications. No patient underwent revision at the index level or adjacent levels in the MELF group. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that C4 radiculopathy can be identified with appropriate history, physical examination, and targeted nerve root injections. When identified, these radiculopathies that fail conservative therapy can be effectively treated with cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy, with comparable outcomes to ACDF. The length of surgery and length of stay are reduced when compared with ACDF.


Subject(s)
Foraminotomy , Radiculopathy , Spinal Diseases , Spinal Fusion , Humans , Radiculopathy/etiology , Radiculopathy/surgery , Neck Pain/etiology , Neck Pain/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective Studies , Diskectomy/methods , Cervical Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging , Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Spinal Fusion/methods , Foraminotomy/methods , Spinal Diseases/surgery
3.
Neurosurgery ; 93(4): 867-874, 2023 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37067954

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as an alternative setting for surgical care as part of the national effort to lower health care costs. The literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the ASC setting is limited to few small case series. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of MIS TLIF performed in the ASC vs inpatient hospital setting. METHODS: A total of 775 patients prospectively enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database undergoing single-level MIS TLIF at a single ASC (100) or the inpatient hospital setting (675) were compared. Propensity matching generated 200 patients for analysis (100 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding baseline demographic data, clinical history, or comorbidities after propensity matching. Only 1 patient required inpatient transfer from the ASC because of intractable pain. All other patients were discharged home within 23 hours of surgery. The rates of 90-day readmission (2.0%) and reoperation (0%) were equivalent between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, back pain, and leg pain) at 3 months that were maintained at 1 year. PROMs did not differ between groups at any time point. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: In carefully selected patients, MIS TLIF may be performed safely in the ASC setting with no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy in comparison with the inpatient setting.


Subject(s)
Spinal Fusion , Spondylolisthesis , Humans , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Inpatients , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Spondylolisthesis/surgery , Spinal Fusion/adverse effects , Back Pain/surgery , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies
4.
Neurosurgery ; 93(3): 628-635, 2023 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36995083

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are the most common surgical approaches for medically refractory cervical radiculopathy. Rigorous cost-effectiveness studies comparing ACDF and PCF are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-utility of ACDF vs PCF performed in the ambulatory surgery center setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: A total of 323 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF (201) or PCF (122) at a single ambulatory surgery center were compared. Propensity matching generated 110 pairs (220 patients) for analysis. Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures, and quality-adjusted life-years were assessed. Direct costs (1-year resource use × unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts) and indirect costs (missed workdays × average US daily wage) were recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Perioperative safety, 90-day readmission, and 1-year reoperation rates were similar between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all patient-reported outcome measures at 3 months that was maintained at 12 months. The ACDF cohort had a significantly higher preoperative Neck Disability Index and a significantly greater improvement in health-state utility (ie, quality-adjusted life-years gained) at 12 months. ACDF was associated with significantly higher total costs at 1 year for both Medicare ($11 744) and privately insured ($21 228) patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ACDF was $184 654 and $333 774 for Medicare and privately insured patients, respectively, reflecting poor cost-utility. CONCLUSION: Single-level ACDF may not be cost-effective in comparison with PCF for surgical management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy.


Subject(s)
Foraminotomy , Radiculopathy , Spinal Fusion , United States , Humans , Aged , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Radiculopathy/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Medicare , Diskectomy , Retrospective Studies
5.
World Neurosurg ; 173: e228-e233, 2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36787856

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have become an increasingly attractive setting for spine surgery in recent decades. Although posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) is widely performed in ASCs, there are no studies supporting the safety of this practice. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of microendoscopic (MED)-PCF in a large cohort of patients at a freestanding ASC. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing MED-PCF for unilateral cervical radiculopathy at a single freestanding ASC from January 2013 to December 2020 were queried. Standard demographic and perioperative data were collected. Outcomes included need for inpatient transfer, perioperative complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, and clinical improvement according to the Odom criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1106 patients underwent MED-PCF during the study period. Mean age was 53.3 ± 10.3 years. Most patients underwent decompression at C5-6 (31.4%) or C6-7 (51.9%). Approximately 10% underwent surgery at multiple levels. Mean operative time was 40.0 ± 16.4 minutes. There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. All patients were discharged home within a few hours of surgery. The rates of 30-day readmission (0.81%) and reoperation (0.36%) were exceedingly low. Nearly 3 quarters of patients (73.7%) achieved a good or excellent clinical outcome (73.7%) according to the Odom criteria. CONCLUSIONS: MED-PCF can be performed in a freestanding ASC with exceedingly low rates of perioperative complications and short-term readmission or reoperation. Our findings support the ongoing migration of PCF from the hospital to the ambulatory setting. Future studies assessing patient-reported outcomes and long-term reoperation rates are necessary.


Subject(s)
Foraminotomy , Radiculopathy , Humans , Adult , Middle Aged , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures , Feasibility Studies , Treatment Outcome , Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Radiculopathy/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Diskectomy
6.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) ; 48(3): 155-163, 2023 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36607626

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Assess the cost-utility of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) performed in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) versus inpatient hospital setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at one-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outpatient ACDF has gained popularity due to improved safety and reduced costs. Formal cost-utility studies for ambulatory versus inpatient ACDF are lacking, precluding an accurate assessment of cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 6504 patients enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) undergoing one-level to two-level ACDF at a single ASC (520) or the inpatient hospital setting (5984) were compared. Propensity matching generated 748 patients for analysis (374 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed. Direct costs (1-year resource use×unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts) and indirect costs (missed workdays×average US daily wage) were recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Complication rates and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures and QALYs were similar between groups. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with significantly lower total costs at 1 year for Medicare ($5879.46) and privately insured ($12,873.97) patients, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for inpatient ACDF was $3,674,662 and $8,046,231 for Medicare and privately insured patients, respectively, reflecting unacceptably poor cost-utility. CONCLUSION: Inpatient ACDF is associated with significant increases in total costs compared to the ASC setting without a safety, outcome, or QALY benefit. The ASC setting is a dominant option from a health economy perspective for first-time one-l to two-level ACDF in select patients compared to the inpatient hospital setting.


Subject(s)
Inpatients , Spinal Fusion , Humans , Aged , United States , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures , Spinal Fusion/adverse effects , Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Medicare , Diskectomy/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
7.
World Neurosurg ; 171: e471-e477, 2023 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36526224

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary approach to surgical care that aims to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Its application to spine surgery has been increasing in recent years, with a notable focus on lumbar fusion. This study describes the development, implementation, and outcomes of the first ERAS pathway for ambulatory spine surgery and the largest ambulatory minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) series to date. METHODS: A comprehensive protocol for ambulatory lumbar fusion is described, including patient selection criteria, a multimodal analgesia regimen, and discharge assessment. Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF using the described protocol at a single ambulatory surgery center (ASC) over a five-year period were queried. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients underwent ambulatory MIS TLIF over the study period. There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. All but one patient (99.5%) were discharged home from the ASC. Almost three-quarters (71.2%) were discharged on the day of surgery. Thirty- and 90-day readmission rates were 1.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Only one readmission (0.5%) was for intractable back pain. There were no reoperations or mortalities within 90 days of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: MIS TLIF can be performed safely in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center with minimal perioperative and short-term morbidity. The addition of comprehensive ERAS protocols to the ambulatory setting can promote the transition of fusion procedures to this lower cost environment in an effort to provide higher value care.


Subject(s)
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery , Spinal Fusion , Humans , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Treatment Outcome , Spinal Fusion/methods , Retrospective Studies
8.
Neurosurg Clin N Am ; 32(4): 483-492, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34538474

ABSTRACT

Three procedures dominate surgical management of degenerative cervical spine disorders: posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy (PCF), cervical total disc replacement (CTDR), and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Together they provide a 360° approach to degenerative cervical spine disease that help surgeons reach the correct treatment decisions. ACDF, CTDR, and PCF are effective procedures for the treatment of a broad range of degenerative cervical disorders. Minimally invasive technique, outpatient setting, motion preservation, and adjacent segment disease should be taken into consideration in the surgical plan. All well-rounded spine surgeons should be skilled at both anterior and posterior approaches to treat radiculopathy.


Subject(s)
Foraminotomy , Intervertebral Disc Degeneration , Radiculopathy , Spinal Fusion , Total Disc Replacement , Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Humans , Intervertebral Disc Degeneration/surgery , Radiculopathy/surgery , Treatment Outcome
9.
Int J Spine Surg ; 14(s3): S14-S21, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33122188

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cervical pedicle screws provide significant biomechanical advantage but can be technically challenging and associated with morbid exposure. Improvements in intraoperative navigation guidance and instrumentation have made feasible this biomechanically robust, but technically challenging procedure. We present our initial experience with minimally invasive (MIS) percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in the cervical atlantoaxial and subaxial spine. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 27 cases that involved a novel MIS percutaneous cervical pedicle screw technique. Small lateral skin incisions were made bilaterally on the neck using intraoperative navigation guidance. Subsequently, navigated, percutaneous screws were placed using the Proficient Minimally Invasive System (PROMIS; Spine Wave, Shelton, CT). Computed tomography (CT)-guided navigation was used for cervical pedicle screw placement with subsequent placement of percutaneous rods. RESULTS: Indications for surgery included type II odontoid fractures, subaxial fracture dislocations and burst fracture, metastatic pathological burst fracture, and degenerative spondylosis with stenosis. There were 15 men and 12 women, with an average age 63.5 years. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 24 months (average = 16.7 months). One screw was revised intraoperatively. Two patients (7.7%) required reoperation, 1 patient required repositioning of a C5 pedicle screw, and 1 suffered a C7 body fracture. No nerve root injury, spinal cord injury, or vertebral artery injuries were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous cervical pedicle screw fixation is a feasible and safe technique when performed with CT-guided intraoperative navigation techniques. Cervical pedicle screw fixation provides a biomechanically superior construct in comparison with a lateral mass technique. In addition, the lack of paraspinal muscle disruption preserves important stabilizers of the posterior ligamentous complex and may reduce wound-healing issues in high-risk cases (eg, trauma patients). Although the current role for percutaneous instrumentation is relatively narrow, the advancement of MIS posterior cervical techniques may provide expanded opportunities in the future.

10.
Neurosurgery ; 86(3): E310-E315, 2020 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31819994

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve efficiency of care, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as lower-cost options. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries performed and rarely requires overnight stays in the hospital, supporting its migration to the ASC. Recent analyses have called into question the safety of outpatient ACDF, potentially slowing its adoption. ASC-ACDF studies have largely been limited to small series, precluding an accurate assessment of safety. OBJECTIVE: To analyze 2000 ASC-ACDF cases, describe patient selection and perioperative protocol, and report associated safety profile. METHODS: A total of 2000 patients who underwent 1 to 3 level ACDF in a single ASC from 2006 to 2018 were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were observed in a 4-h postanesthesia care unit (PACU) with a multimodal pain management regiment. Data were collected on patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and 30- and 90-d morbidity. RESULTS: Of the 2000 patients, 10 (0.5%) required transfer to an inpatient setting within the 4-h observation. Reasons for transfer included hematoma (2), pain control (2), cerebrospinal fluid leak (1), and medical complications (5). Six patients (0.3%) underwent reoperation within 30 d. All-cause 30-d readmission was 1.9%. CONCLUSION: An analysis of 2000 ACDF patients in an ASC setting with a standardized perioperative protocol demonstrates that surgical complications occur at a low rate (<1%) and can be appropriately diagnosed and managed in a 4-h PACU. In an effort to decrease healthcare costs, surgeons can safely perform ACDFs in an ASC utilizing patient selection criteria and perioperative management protocols similar to those reported here.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures , Diskectomy , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Spinal Fusion , Adult , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/methods , Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Diskectomy/adverse effects , Diskectomy/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Spinal Fusion/adverse effects , Spinal Fusion/methods
11.
J Neurosurg Spine ; : 1-6, 2019 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31731271

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated that anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery in the outpatient versus hospital setting provides improved efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction without a compromise in safety or outcome. Recent anecdotal reports, however, have questioned whether outpatient ACDF surgery is safe in the > 65-year-old Medicare population. To date, no clinical study has assessed the safety of outpatient ACDF in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC), specifically in a Medicare population. The authors set out to analyze their 3-year experience with Medicare-enrolled patients undergoing ACDF surgery at a single ASC to determine its safety profile, perioperative care protocol, and associated outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 119 consecutive patients > 65 years (Medicare-eligible) who underwent 1-, 2-, or 3-level ACDF at a single ASC from 2015 to 2018 (since Medicare payment approval) was conducted. All patients were in American Society of Anesthesiologists classes I-III. Postoperatively, patients were observed for a minimum of 4 hours in a recovery setting for the following factors: neck swelling, neurological status, ability to swallow solid food, and urination capacity. All patients received a multimodal pain management regimen prior to discharge home. Data were collected on patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and all perioperative and 90-day morbidity. RESULTS: Complete data were available for all 119 consecutive Medicare-eligible patients, 97 (81.5%) of whom were actively enrolled in Medicare. One-, 2-, and 3-level ACDFs were performed in 103 (86.6%), 15 (12.6%), and 1 (0.8%) patients, respectively. No patients required return to the operating room for intervention within the 4-hour postanesthesia care unit observation window. No patients required transfer from the ASC to the hospital setting for further observation or intervention. Thirty-day adverse events were reported in 2.4% of cases, all of which resolved by 90 days after surgery. The incidence of 90-day hospital readmission was 1.7% (n = 2), with 1 patient (0.8%) requiring reoperation at the index level for deep infection. All-cause 90-day mortality was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of consecutive Medicare patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists classes I-III) who underwent mostly 1-level and some 2-level ACDFs in an ASC setting demonstrates that surgical complications occur at a low rate with a safety profile similar to that reported for both inpatient ACDF and patients younger than 65 years. In an effort to reduce cost and improve efficiency of care, surgeons can safely perform ACDF in the Medicare population in an ASC environment utilizing patient selection criteria and perioperative management similar to those reported here.

12.
J Neurosurg Spine ; 24(6): 878-84, 2016 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26849708

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE In an era of escalating health care costs and pressure to improve efficiency and cost of care, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as lower-cost options for many surgical therapies. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries performed, and the frequency of its performance is rapidly increasing as the aging population grows. Although ASCs offer significant cost advantages over hospital-based surgical centers, concern over the safety of outpatient ACDF has slowed its adoption. The authors intended to 1) determine the safety of the first 1000 consecutive ACDF surgeries performed in their outpatient ASC, and 2) compare the safety of these outpatient ACDFs with that of consecutive ACDFs performed during the same time period in the hospital setting. METHODS A total of 1000 consecutive patients who underwent ACDF in an ACS (outpatient ACDF) and 484 consecutive patients who underwent ACDF at Vanderbilt University Hospital (inpatient ACDF) from 2006 to 2013 were included in this retrospective study of patients' medical records. Data were collected on patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and perioperative and 90-day morbidity. Perioperative morbidity and hospital readmission were compared between the outpatient and inpatient ACDF groups. RESULTS Of the first 1000 outpatient ACDF cases performed in the authors' ASC, 629 (62.9%) were 1-level and 365 (36.5%) were 2-level ACDFs. Mean patient age was 49.5 ± 8.6, and 484 (48.4%) were males. All patients were observed postoperatively at the ASC postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for 4 hours before being discharged home. Eight patients (0.8%) were transferred from the surgery center to the hospital postoperatively (for pain control [n = 3], chest pain and electrocardiogram changes [n = 2], intraoperative CSF leak [n = 1], postoperative hematoma [n = 1], and profound postoperative weakness and surgical reexploration [n = 1]). No perioperative deaths occurred. The 30-day hospital readmission rate was 2.2%. All 90-day surgical morbidity was similar between outpatient and inpatient cohorts for both 1-level and 2-level ACDFs. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of 1000 consecutive patients who underwent ACDF in an outpatient setting demonstrates that surgical complications occur at a low rate (1%) and can be appropriately diagnosed and managed in a 4-hour ASC PACU window. Comparison with an inpatient ACDF surgery cohort demonstrated similar results, highlighting that ACDF can be safely performed in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting without compromising surgical safety. In an effort to decrease costs of care, surgeons can safely perform 1- and 2-level ACDFs in an ASC environment.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/methods , Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Diskectomy/methods , Spinal Fusion/methods , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Comorbidity , Diskectomy/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Inpatients , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Spinal Fusion/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
13.
Neurosurg Focus ; 25(2): E2, 2008.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18673049

ABSTRACT

Spine surgery has seen parallel interest and development in the areas of motion preservation and minimally invasive surgery. Posterior microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy (MELF) allows for neural decompression while maintaining motion via a minimally invasive approach. This technique shares the advantage of maintenance of motion with arthroplasty, but without the need for instrumentation. Therefore, the procedure is motion preserving, minimally invasive and cost-effective. The ideal indications for posterior MELF include unilateral radiculopathy secondary to "hard disc" or spondylosis, as well as soft disc herniations. The authors present a modified surgical technique for posterior MELF as well as a case study illustrating its synergy with anterior arthroplasty.


Subject(s)
Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Endoscopy/methods , Laminectomy/methods , Microsurgery/methods , Adult , Cervical Vertebrae/pathology , Female , Humans , Intervertebral Disc Displacement/diagnosis , Intervertebral Disc Displacement/surgery , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Neck Pain/diagnosis , Neck Pain/surgery
14.
J Neurosurg Spine ; 1(1): 43-6, 2004 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15291019

ABSTRACT

Since 1997, cervical endoscopic laminoforaminotomy (CELF) has been an effective and safe treatment option for unilateral cervical radiculopathy secondary to disc herniation or foraminal stenosis. The development of the surgical technique is reviewed and recent outcomes discussed. Its impact is addressed in relation to the patient and surgeon.


Subject(s)
Cervical Vertebrae/surgery , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Radiculopathy/surgery , Spinal Osteophytosis/surgery , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...