Severity of spinal degeneration does not affect the pain reduction under continuous epidural analgesia.

PURPOSE: To outline clinical effectiveness of continuous epidural analgesia (CEA) in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) depending on severity of spinal degeneration. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients with FBSS or LSS who underwent CEA within an inpatient rehabilitation program were evaluated. The pain reduction was measured by VAS on an hourly basis. Substantial pain reduction was defined as a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) > 50%. Severity of spinal degeneration, side effects and patient-specific characteristics were documented. RESULT: We included a total of 148 patients with 105 patients suffering from FBSS and 48 with LSS. The average pain reduction was - 37.6 ± 19.2 in FBSS and - 38.1 ± 17.8 in LSS group (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). In the FBSS group, sensory deficits (p = .047) and numbness (p = .002), and in the LSS group, a severe disability measured by ODI (38.2 ± 15.4 vs. 57.3 ± 11.3, p < .001) significantly contributed to a worse outcome. The severity of the spinal degeneration and psychological disorders did not affect the pain reduction in terms of MCID. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence about CEA in the treatment of FBSS and LSS. CEA provides a significant pain reduction even under intensified physiotherapeutic exercising in patients with severe spinal degeneration and a broad variety of secondary diagnoses. Neurologic deficits in case of FBSS and severe disability in case of LSS may be risk factors for less favorable outcome.

Operative results of AO A3 and A4 traumatic injuries in the thoracic and lumbar spine. A multicenter surveillance study of 4230 patients from the German Spine Registry (DWG-Register).

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis, classification and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, continue to be controversial. Surgery is generally the preferred treatment for unstable fractures while stable fractures are managed conservatively. This study aims to describe surgical procedures, outcomes, complications, demography, clinical features and differences between A3 and A4 fractures (AO classification) of the thoracolumbar region. A subgroup of patients <91 years with osteoporotic fractures is included and analyzed. METHODS: Analysis of data from the DWG-Register German spine registry on operative treatment for thoracolumbar AO A3 and A4 fractures out of 170 departments from January 2017 to May 2021. The evaluated variables included age, gender, surgical approach (posterior, anterior combined), and re-operation. RESULTS: In total, 4230 AO A3 and A4 thoracolumbar fractures were identified in the registry; 2898 A3 (group 1) and 1332 A4 (group 2). The preoperative ASIA-impairment scale score in group 1 was significantly different compared with group 2 (P=0.02). Surgical procedures such as decompression/stabilization with rod-screw system cemented/non-cemented, as well as an anterior approach, were statistically significant between the groups. Odds ratio was calculated for variables that could be influenced for the type of fracture (A3 or A4): decompression 4.89, OR time >2 hours 48.22, osteoporosis 6.46 and posterior access 9.85. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides multicenter results from a huge number of surgically treated AO A3 and A4 fractures. Anterior approaches are more often used in A4 type fractures, probably because of its inherent instability related to burst fractures, surprisingly, not associated with the occurrence of added perioperative complications. Nevertheless, A3 type fractures are presented with worse ASIA Impairment-Scale at admission, in comparison with A4 type fractures of the thoracolumbar region.

Intra- and postoperative complications in the treatment of spinal metastases . A multicenter surveillance study from the German Spinal Registry (DWG-Register).

BACKGROUND: The incidence of spinal column tumors is estimated to be 0.62 per 100,000 individuals in the USA. It is especially important to understand the incidence and predictive factors for adverse events of surgery in spinal oncology patients, as a single complication may be associated with morbidity, mortality, and costs. The aim of the study was to use a large national registry to evaluate the perioperative cumulative incidence and predictors of major complications, for metastatic spinal tumors. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of data from the DWG registry on patients who have undergone decompression with and without instrumentation undergoing tumor debulking, release of the neural structures, spinal stabilization or tumor extirpation in metastatic disease of the spine in 124 departments from January 2017 to January 2020, as well as vertebroplasty and percutaneous instrumentation. The outcomes evaluated were major complications defined by Finkelstein et al. as: death; cerebral (new postoperative coma or stroke), cardiac, pulmonary or renal complication; symptomatic venous thromboembolism; surgical site infection. RESULTS: In total, 1617 decompressions with and without instrumentation undergoing tumor debulking, release of the neural structures, spinal stabilization or tumor extirpation in metastatic disease in the spine were identified in the registry; N.=266 developed a major complication (group 2), while N.=1351 had no complication (group 1). The mean age in group 1 was 65 years (58.5%), in group 2 69 years (63.5%). In group 2, most of the patients had preoperatively an ASA Score of 3 and 4 (patients with severe general disease): 202/266 (75.9%) being significant. The overall prevalence of a major postoperative complication was 16.5% and for an intraoperative complication remained 8%. The likelihood ratio for major complications by blood loss greater than 500 mL were as follows: cardiovascular event with a likelihood of 4.22 pulmonary insufficiency 4.18 and cerebral 5.47. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides predictive models for surgeons to identify patients who may benefit from transitional care programs. Preoperative status, invasiveness, blood loss >500 mL and blood transfusions are independent predictors associated with higher risk of complication.

There is no difference in perioperative results between posterior instrumentation with and without interbody cage and debridement in primary spondylodiscitis in adults: a multicenter surveillance study from the German Spine Registry (DWG Register).

BACKGROUND: Primary spondylodiscitis is a medically challenging disease that can lead to recurrent back pain, progressive kyphotic deformity, and neurologic deficits. The incidence rate of primary non-tuberculosis spondylodiscitis has been estimated from 2.2 to 2.4 cases per 100,000 person-years, and it has been reported to be increasing because of the aging population. The objectives were to determine the safety and efficacy of posterior instrumentation (PI) with and without interbody cage, bony attachment and debridement in the treatment of primary spondylodiscitis by comparing perioperative data, functional outcomes, and overall infection-free survival. METHODS: Analysis of data from the DWG Registry on patients who have undergone posterior instrumentation with and without interbody cage, bony attachment and debridement in primary spondylodiscitis from the thoracolumbar junction to S1 (Th10-S1) at 10 institutions from January 2012 to December 2016. RESULTS: In total, 420 posterior instrumentations with and without interbody cage, bony attachment and debridement in primary spondylodiscitis in the thoracolumbar junction to S1 were identified in the registry; N.=138 were exclusively percutaneous posterior instrumented (PPI), while N.=102 underwent open posterior instrumentation (OPI) without interbody cage, bony attachment and debridement and N.=180 OPI with interbody cage, bony attachment and debridement. Clinical evaluation after surgery did not show a significant difference between groups including improvement of the mobilization and infection-free survival. However, with PPI the duration of operation and blood loss was significantly less than OPI with and without interbody cage, bony attachment and debridement. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest interbody cage, bony attachment and debridement as not indispensable for treatment in primary spondylodiscitis. Therefore, we encourage the use of posterior stabilization alone in the treatment of spondylodiscitis as less invasive procedure reducing costs in instrumentation.

Invasiveness has no influence on the rate of incidental durotomies in surgery for multisegmental lumbar spinal canal stenosis (≥3 levels) with and without fusion: analysis from the German Spine Registry data (DWG-Register).

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, perioperative complications as dural tear (DT) with subsequent neurological deficits are documented in independent registers. However, the relationship of these complications with the grade of invasiveness (≥3 levels) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative complications, particularly DT with subsequent neurological deficits, between patients undergoing laminotomy and decompression and decompression and fusion in ≥3 levels. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the data pool of the DWG register based on cases described by 10 clinics between January 2012 and December 2016 was performed. Surgically treated LSS in ≥3 segments were divided into decompression with or without instrumentation and fusion. Cases with intraoperative DT in both subgroups were analysed for risk factor occurrence. The Surgical Invasive Index (SII) was used. RESULTS: DT occurred in 102/941 (10.8%) patients. Difference in DT between groups was non-significant. The likelihood of DT increased by 2.12-fold with previous spinal surgery at the same level and by 1.9-fold for BMI 30-34 and >35 in comparison with BMI 26-29, respectively. Postoperative deep wound infection was increased by 2.39-fold after DT than without. Significance in outcomes between patients with/without DT was not found. The invasiveness index explained 48% of the variation in blood loss and 51% of the variation in surgery duration. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of incidental DT during decompression for LSS with and without fusion in ≥3 levels was associated with BMI and previous surgery at the same spinal level. Invasivness (SII) is valid rather for variables proper to surgery such as bledding and Op-time but no with incidence for DT and subsequent CSF-leackage.

The degree of invasiveness has no influence on the rate of incidental durotomies in surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: data from the German spine registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for incidental durotomies are good documented by some authors who consider the degree of invasiveness as a direct risk factor on this serious complication. We compared the rate of incidental durotomies and its dependence from the degree of invasiveness. METHODS: The German Spine Registry could document 6016 surgeries for lumbar spinal canal stenosis, N.=2539 microsurgical decompression, and N.=2371 open decompression with stabilization. RESULTS: Both groups were identical concerning age and sex of patients, mean age: 77.1±1.60; females: 58%; males: 32%. There were 410 incidental durotomies, group 1: 209 (8.23%); group 2: 201 (8.47%). This difference is statistically not relevant (P=0,75). A surgical therapy is documented in 345 (84%) cases, suture with/without fibrin glue: group 1=162 and group 2=183. Fifty-nine patients had a persistent fistula that needed treatment with a lumbar drain, group 1: N.=30; and group 2: N.=29. CONCLUSIONS: The groups decompression vs. decompression plus fusion are statistically comparable. Although the stabilization with instrumentation is a more invasive procedure with longer operation times, trauma tissue and blood loss - in comparison with microsurgical decompression - showed no difference in the rate of incidental durotomies.