Considerations for Surgical Treatment of Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

PURPOSE: It remains unclear whether first rib resection (FRR), performed via a supraclavicular (SCFRR) or transaxillary (TAFRR) approach, is necessary for patients with neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (nTOS). In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a direct comparison of patient-reported functional outcomes following different surgical approaches for nTOS. METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, Google Scholar, and the gray literature. Data were extracted based on the procedure type. Well-validated patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed in separate time intervals. Random-effects meta-analysis and descriptive statistics were used where appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were included, with 11 discussing SCFRR (812 patients), 6 discussing TAFRR (478 patients), and 5 discussing rib-sparing scalenectomy (RSS; 720 patients). The mean difference between preoperative and postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was significantly different comparing RSS (43.0), TAFRR (26.8), and SCFRR (21.8). The mean difference between preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale scores was significantly higher for TAFRR (5.3) compared to SCFRR (3.0). Derkash scores were significantly worse for TAFRR compared to RSS or SCFRR. RSS had a success rate of 97.4% based on Derkash score, followed by SCFRR and TAFRR at 93.2% and 87.9%, respectively. RSS had a lower complication rate compared to SCFRR and TAFRR. There was a difference in complication rates: 8.7%, 14.5%, and 3.6% for SCFRR, TAFRR, and RSS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mean differences in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores and Derkash scores were significantly better for RSS. Higher complication rates were reported after FRR. Our findings suggest that RSS is an effective option for the treatment of nTOS. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Endoscopic Rhizotomy for Facetogenic Back Pain: A Review of the History, Financial Considerations, Patient Selection Criteria, and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chronic back pain (CBP) is a condition that places a considerable burden on society, with several million people affected in the United States alone. Treatment options to address this problem and relieve CBP are constantly evolving, and one of the most promising treatment modalities for CBP that is refractory to conservative treatment options is endoscopic rhizotomy (ER). METHODS: A thorough search of the PubMed (MEDLINE) database was conducted to assess the full progression of ER from its earliest uses to present day in a historical narrative review of ER, with treatment of facetogenic pain as a model pathology. RESULTS: ER allows for direct visualization and ablation of sensory branches of the dorsal ramus to provide pain relief in up to 80% of patients faced with refractory CBP. This technique has been built upon since the early 20th century, and the novel endoscopic approach continues to gain popularity among physicians. Benefits of ER include superior postoperative median pain-free duration compared with traditional percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, as well as direct visualization of regional anatomy. Patient selection criteria for the procedure and a modest list of contraindications allow the use of ER as a viable treatment option for a significant population of patients suffering from CBP. Potential barriers to ER include high cost of the procedure, longer intraoperative time, and expensive proprietary equipment. CONCLUSIONS: ER is an effective treatment for refractory CBP with notable advantages. As the technology and popularity of this procedure progress, improvements in the cost, training, and intraoperative time may make it a favorable alternative to the current standard of care.