Motion Capture-based 3-dimensional Measurement of Range of Motion in Patients Undergoing Cervical Laminoplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To measure 3-dimensional cervical range of motion (ROM) by noninvasive optical tracking-based motion-capture technology in patients undergoing laminoplasty, and to elucidate the postoperative effects of laminoplasty on cervical mobility. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical laminoplasty is a motion-sparing decompression surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Unlike cervical laminectomy and fusion, the true postoperative impact of laminoplasty on neck motion has not been well studied. METHODS: Participants comprised 25 patients undergoing double-door cervical laminoplasty for degenerative cervical myelopathy in a single center. Maximum flexion/extension, left/right rotation, and left/right side bending were recorded using the motion-capture device preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. ROMs in 3 orthogonal axes were calculated. Preoperative differences in C2-7 Cobb angles on lateral flexion/extension x-rays were also measured as the radiologic ROM to assess reliability. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Neck Disability Index [NDI], and Euro-QOL were recorded, and correlations with ROMs were assessed. RESULTS: Preoperative mean (±SD) ROMs for flexion/extension, rotation, and side bending were 90±17, 107±16, and 53±17 degrees, respectively. Although radiologic sagittal ROM measurement showed a smaller range than motion capture, averaging 36±13 degrees, a moderate to strong correlation between radiologic and motion capture values was observed (R=0.57, P=0.003). Preoperative NDI showed a negative correlation with coronal ROM (rho=-0.547, P=0.02). Postoperative ROM showed a significant reduction in rotation (95±16 degrees, P=0.002) but not in flexion/extension or side bending. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional motion-capture analysis allowed reliable measurement of cervical ROM. Rotational ROM was significantly reduced after laminoplasty, showing that cervical kinematics are still significantly altered.

Comparative Analysis of Microendoscopic and Open Laminectomy for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis at L1-L2 or L2-L3.

BACKGROUND: Several reports have highlighted comparable surgical outcomes between microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) and open laminectomy (open) for lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the unilateral approach in MEL may present challenges for the upper lumbar levels, where facet joints are located deeper inside. Our objective was to compare surgical outcomes and radiographic evaluations for single-level decompression cases at L1-L2 or L2-L3 between MEL and open laminectomy. METHODS: We analyzed patients who underwent single-level decompression for upper lumbar spinal stenosis at 12 distinguished spine centers from April 2017 to September 2021. Baseline demographics, preoperative, and 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes, along with imaging parameters, were compared between the MEL and open groups. To account for potential confounding, patients' backgrounds were adjusted using the inverse probability weighting method based on propensity scores. RESULTS: Among the 2487 patients undergoing decompression surgery, 118 patients (4.7%) underwent single-level decompression at L1-L2 or L2-L3. Finally, 80 patients (51 in the MEL group, 29 in the open group) with postoperative data were deemed eligible for analysis. The MEL group exhibited significantly improved postoperative EuroQol 5-Dimension values compared to the open group. Additionally, the MEL group showed a lower facet preservation rate according to computed tomography examination, whereas the open group had a higher incidence of retrolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall surgical outcomes were similar, the MEL group demonstrated potential advantages in enhancing EuroQol 5-Dimension scores. The MEL group's lower facet preservation rate did not translate into a higher postoperative instability rate.

Quality of Life and Postoperative Satisfaction in Patients with Benign Extramedullary Spinal Tumors: A Multicenter Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected registry data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and postoperative satisfaction in patients with different histotypes of benign extramedullary spinal tumors (ESTs). BACKGROUND: Little is known about how different histotypes influence HRQOL and postoperative satisfaction in EST patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing primary benign EST surgery at 11 tertiary referral hospitals between 2017 and 2021 who completed preoperative and 1-year postoperative questionnaires were included. HRQOL assessment included the Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of Short Form-12, EuroQol 5-dimension, Oswestry/Neck Disability Index (ODI/NDI), and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for upper/lower extremities (UEP/LEP) and back pain (BP). Patients who answered "very satisfied," "satisfied," or "somewhat satisfied" on a seven-point Likert scale were considered to be satisfied with treatment. Student t -tests or Welch's t -test were used to compare continuous variables between two groups, and one-way analysis of variance was used to compare outcomes between the three groups of EST histotypes (schwannoma, meningioma, atypical). Categorical variables were compared using the χ 2 test or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 140 consecutive EST patients were evaluated; 100 (72%) had schwannomas, 30 (21%) had meningiomas, and 10 (7%) had other ESTs. Baseline Physical Component Summary was significantly worse in patients with meningiomas ( P =0.04), and baseline NRS-LEP was significantly worse in patients with schwannomas ( P =0.03). However, there were no significant differences in overall postoperative HRQOL or patient satisfaction between histology types. Overall, 121 (86%) patients were satisfied with surgery. In a subgroup analysis comparing intradural schwannomas and meningiomas adjusted for patient demographics and tumor location with inverse probability weighting, schwannoma patients had worse baseline MCS ( P =0.03), ODI ( P =0.03), NRS-BP ( P <.001), and NRS-LEP ( P =0.001). Schwannoma patients also had worse postoperative MCS ( P =0.03) and NRS-BP ( P =0.001), with no significant difference in the percentage of satisfied patients ( P =0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent primary benign EST resection had a significant improvement in HRQOL postoperatively, and ~90% of these patients reported being satisfied with their treatment outcomes one year after surgery. EST patients may exhibit a relatively lower threshold for postoperative satisfaction compared with patients undergoing surgery for degenerative spine conditions.

Adaptation and Limitations of painDETECT Questionnaire Score Approach Before and After Posterior Cervical Decompression Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ) is one of the available screening tools for neuropathic pain (NeP), with a cut-off score of 13. This study aimed to investigate changes in PDQ scores in patients undergoing posterior cervical decompression surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). METHODS: Patients with DCM undergoing cervical laminoplasty or laminectomy with posterior fusion were recruited. They were asked to complete a booklet questionnaire including PDQ and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for pain at baseline and one year after surgery. Patients with a preoperative PDQ score ≥13 were further investigated. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients (mean age = 70.1 years; 77 male and 54 female) were analyzed. After posterior cervical decompression surgery for DCM, mean PDQ scores decreased from 8.93 to 7.28 (P = 0.008) in all patients. Of the 35 patients (27%) with preoperative PDQ scores ≥13, mean PDQ changed from 18.83 to 12.09 (P < 0.001). Comparing the NeP improved group (17 patients with postoperative PDQ scores ≤12) with the NeP residual group (18 patients with postoperative PDQ scores ≥13), the NeP improved group showed less preoperative neck pain (2.8 vs. 4.4, P = 0.043) compared to the NeP residual group. There was no difference in the postoperative satisfaction rate between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 30% of patients exhibited preoperative PDQ scores ≥13, and about half of these patients demonstrated improvements to below to the cut-off value for NeP after posterior cervical decompression surgery. The PDQ score change was relatively associated with preoperative neck pain.

Treatment of restenosis after lumbar decompression surgery: decompression versus decompression and fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare perioperative complications and postoperative outcomes between patients with lumbar recurrent stenosis without lumbar instability and radiculopathy who underwent decompression surgery and those who underwent decompression with fusion surgery. METHODS: For this retrospective study, the authors identified 2606 consecutive patients who underwent posterior surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis at eight affiliated hospitals between April 2017 and June 2019. Among these patients, those with a history of prior decompression surgery and central canal restenosis with cauda equina syndrome were included in the study. Those patients with instability or radiculopathy were excluded. The patients were divided between the decompression group and decompression with fusion group. The demographic characteristics, numerical rating scale score for low-back pain, incidence rates of lower-extremity pain and lower-extremity numbness, Oswestry Disability Index score, 3-level EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction rate were compared between the two groups using the Fisher's exact probability test for nominal variables and the Student t-test for continuous variables, with p < 0.05 as the level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria (35 males and 11 females; 19 patients underwent decompression and 27 decompression and fusion; mean ± SD age 72.5 ± 8.8 years; mean ± SD follow-up 18.8 ± 6.0 months). Demographic data and perioperative complication rates were similar. The percentages of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important differences for patient-reported outcomes or satisfaction rate at 1 year were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with central canal stenosis who underwent revision, the short-term outcomes of the patients who underwent decompression were comparable to those of the patients who underwent decompression and fusion. Decompression surgery may be effective for patients without instability or radiculopathy.