"Platelet-Rich Plasma" epidural injection an emerging strategy in lumbar disc herniation: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar herniated disc (HNP) is mainly treated by conservative management. Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has been an option to treat failed cases prior to surgery. Triamcinolone has been widely used due to its efficacy in bringing about pain reduction for up to three months. However, several reports have shown some severe adverse events. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is made from blood through centrifugation. Several studies supported the potential short to long-term effects, and safety of PRP injection in treating HNP. The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy of PRP in treatment of single-level lumbar HNP in comparison to triamcinolone. METHODS: Thirty patients were treated by transforaminal epidural injections. PRP was obtained from 24 ml venous blood through standardized double-spin protocol. Participants included fifteen patients each being in triamcinolone and PRP groups. The same postoperative protocols and medications were applied. The visual analogue scale of leg (LegVAS), collected at baseline, 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks, was the primary outcome. The BackVAS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), adverse event, and treatment failure were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Platelet ratio of PRP in fifteen patients was 2.86 ± 0.85. Patients treated by PRP injections showed statistically and clinically significant reduction in LegVAS at 6, 12, and 24 weeks, and in ODI at 24 weeks. It demonstrated comparable results on other aspects. No adverse event occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Noncommercial epidural double-spin PRP yielded superior results to triamcinolone. Due to its efficacy and safety, the procedure is recommended in treating single level lumbar HNP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT, NCT05234840. Registered 1 January 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT05234840 .

Surgeons' Perspective, Learning Curve, Motivation, and Obstacles of Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Thailand: Results From A Nationwide Survey.

Objective: To report a nationwide survey of the endoscopic spine surgeons across Thailand. Furthermore, the survey will be focused on the perspective of experience, learning curve, motivations, and obstacles at the beginning of their practices. Materials and Methods: The online survey consisting of 16 items was distributed to spine surgeons who are performing endoscopic spine surgery in Thailand via the Google forms web-based questionnaire to investigate participants' demographics, backgrounds, experience in endoscopic spine surgery, motivations, obstacles, and future perspectives. The data was recorded from January 7, 2020 to January 21, 2022. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results: A total of 42 surveys were submitted by 6 neurosurgeons (14.3%) and 36 orthopedic surgeons (85.7%). From the surgeons' perspective, the average number of cases that should be performed until one feels confident, consistently good outcomes, and has minimal complications was 27.44 ± 32.46 cases. For surgeons who starting the endoscopic spine practice, at least 3 workshop participation is needed. Personal interest (39 selected responses) and trending marketing or business purpose (25 selected responses) were the primary motivators for endoscopic spine surgery implementation. Lack of support (18 selected responses) and afraid of complications (16 selected responses) were pertinent obstacles to endoscopic spine surgery implementation. Conclusions: The trend of endoscopic spine surgery has continued to grow in Thailand, shown by the rate of implementation of endoscopic spine surgery reported by Thai spine surgeons. The number of appropriate cases until one feels confident was around 28 cases. The primary motivator and obstacles were personal interest and lack of support.

Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to compare outcomes (pain VAS, fusion and adverse event) of PRP and placebo after posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to September 16, 2019 that reported visual analog scale back pain, postoperative complications and fusions of either group. RESULTS: In a total of seven studies, two, two, three studies were RCT, prospective and retrospective studies, respectively. Overall, there were 270 patients (150 in the PRP group and 149 in the placebo group). Three, three, four, three, two, seven and four studies were reported for pain VAS back in 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, period of fusion, postoperative fusion and adverse events, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference (UMD) VAS back in 3, 6, 6 and 24 months was - 0.41 (95% CI - 0.87, 0.05) score, - 0.97 (95% CI - 1.68, - 0.27) score, - 0.33 (95% CI - 0.61, - 0.59) score, - 0.19 (95% CI - 1.00, 0.62) scores lower than placebo after posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) patients. The UMD period of bone union were - 1.62 (95% CI - 1.85, - 1.39) months faster than placebo after PLF patients. A total of seven and four studies were reported fusion and adverse events between PRP and placebo group. No significant differences were noted for fusion and adverse events with the pooled RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.48, 1.80) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.14, 6.56). CONCLUSIONS: PRP with autologous bone graft had lower back pain and faster bone union time than bone graft alone. While, there have no difference in fusion rate and adverse events in both groups. Larger, prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is still insufficient. Further research including cost of operation, postoperative function and satisfaction, quality of life and cost-efficacy analysis is required to determine whether the PRP with autologous bone graft is superior to bone graft alone or not. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar stenosis causes pain in the lower lumbar spine and lower extremities and reduces the patient's quality of life and walking ability. Thus, these conditions are common surgical indications for spinal stenosis. Previous reports have shown satisfactory clinical outcomes of the full-endoscopic (FE) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. However, they still remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes between FE (bi-portal or uni-portal) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. METHOD: We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes (operative time, VAS for back and leg pain, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up) of full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) and microscopic technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to October 16, 2019. RESULTS: Nine of 1107 studies (five comparative studies and four RCT) (N = 994 patients) were eligible; all studies were included in pooling of FE and MI decompression. Five and three studies were included in pooling of bi-portal endoscopic, uni-portal endoscopic and MI decompression. All three techniques were compared in one study. Eight, nine, seven, eight, five, seven, eight and nine studies were included in pooling of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up and operative time, respectively. The UMD of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up of FE group was - 0.63 (95% CI - 1.15, - 0.12), - 0.15 (- 0.42, 0.11), - 2.06 (- 3.76, - 0.39), - 0.07 (- 0.22, 0.08), - 0.16 (- 0.29, - 0.03), - 0.20 (- 1.20, 0.81) scores and - 3.00 (- 12.25, 6.25) minutes when compared to MI in lumbar stenosis. In terms of complication, FE was lower risk of 0.62 (0.40, 0.96) times when compared to MI. After subgroup analysis, BESS had significant lower back and leg pain within 3 months when compared to MI group, while uni-portal FE had significant lower leg pain in the last follow-up and complication when compared to MI group. There had no difference in ODI and operative time between two groups. CONCLUSION: FE had statistically significant lower back pain, lower leg pain and lower risk of having complications when compared to MI decompression in lumbar stenosis, while there is no difference in ODI and operative time between both groups. Comparing to MI, BESS had better early postoperative back pain while uni-portal FE had better leg pain and risk of having complications. Larger, prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is still insufficient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparative Outcomes of Perioperative Epidural Steroids After Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative outcomes and complications after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with or without epidural steroids (ES) administration in lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial at Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, from May 2014 to May 2015, 30 patients were randomly allocated to receive ES or placebo (saline) after PELD. The primary outcome was 24-hour morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score, and complications at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 60.0 years, and 0.57% of patients were male. Mean VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores at baseline were 4.7, 6.1, 24.9, 17.5 in the ES group and 5.1, 5.5, 24.7, 16.7 in the placebo group, respectively. Mean morphine requirements measured at 8, 16, and 24 hours were 3.47, 2.67, and <0.001 in the ES group and 3.13, 1.67, and 0.40 in the placebo group. The mean VAS scores measured at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours were 2.99, 2.70, 2.56, 3.30, 3.05, and 2.05 the ES group and 3.13, 1.13, 1.26, 1.65, 1.22, and 1.08 in placebo group. The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of ES with PELD for lumbar disc herniation does not improve postoperative pain, morphine requirements, or disability scores in the short-term and midterm periods.

Comparative outcomes of epidural steroids versus placebo after lumbar discectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Treatment for lumbar disc herniation after failed conservative treatment is discectomy. Discectomy can significantly relieve back pain as well as radicular symptoms. However, many patients with lumbar discectomy experience moderate-to-severe back pain and radicular leg pain. The results of application of epidural steroids (ES) for pain management after lumbar discectomy have previously been inconclusive. We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare outcomes (efficacy and complications) of epidural steroid application and placebo after discectomy in lumbar disc herniation. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies that reported visual analog scale of back and leg pain, morphine consumption, hospital stay and post-operative complications of either group were identified from Medline and Scopus from the date of inception to 28 October 2017. A total of 12 studies were pooled and analysed, with nine studies having undergone conventional discectomy and three studies having undergone minimally invasive surgery (MIS) discectomy. Overall, there were 1006 patients (502 in the ES group and 504 in the placebo group) included. The unstandardized mean difference of VAS of back pain at 1 week and 1 month, leg pain at 1 week and 1 month, morphine consumption and hospital stay was - 0.53 (95% CI - 1.42, 0.36) score, - 0.89 (95% CI - 1.36, - 0.42) score, - 0.63 (95% CI - 0.75, - 0.50) score, - 0.47 (95% CI - 0.78, - 0.15) score, - 8.47 (95% CI - 16.16, - 0.78) mg and - 0.89 (95% CI - 1.49, - 0.30) days lower when compared to placebo after lumbar discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. A total of ten studies compared the ratio of complication between the ES and placebo groups. No significant differences were noted for complications within the two groups (0.92; 95% CI 0.47, 1.83). This meta-analysis analysed lower back and leg pain, morphine consumption and hospital stay, with no significant difference in complications for ES application after lumbar discectomy in lumbar disc herniation. In terms of surgical approaches with MIS compared to conventional approach, this review demonstrates that ES can reduce post-operative morphine consumption when the surgical approach is conventional, but not for MIS.Level of evidence I.

The short and midterm outcomes of lumbar transforaminal epidural injection with preganglionic and postganglionic approach in lumbosacral radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes after preganglionic versus ganglionic epidural steroid injection (ESI) using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-regression was performed to compare postoperative outcomes between the two difference injection techniques. Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from Medline and Scopus up to September 24, 2016. Sixteen out of 598 studies were eligible; 3, 2, and 3 studies were included in the pooling of outcomes including effectiveness, visual analog score (VAS), and complications (nerve root, injury, dural puncture, and intraneural injection). Preganglionic ESI has a 2.38 (95% CI 1.12, 5.04) times statistically significantly higher chance of effectiveness when compared to ganglionic ESI. There were differences in pain VAS and complications in lumbar radiculopathy, but these displayed no statistical significance. This meta-analysis indicated that preganglionic ESI has a statistically significantly higher chance of effectiveness when compared to ganglionic ESI. In terms of pain score and complications, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. These results were generally homogeneous and with little publication bias, thus should be generalizable.

Comparative Outcomes of Cortical Screw Trajectory Fixation and Pedicle Screw Fixation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes of cortical screw and pedicle screw (PS) fixation techniques for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHOD: We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes of cortical screw and PS fixation techniques for lumbar spinal fusions from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to 2 October 2016. RESULTS: Eight of 1147 studies (N = 466 patients) were eligible: 5 back pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS); 4 leg pain VAS; 3 Oswestry Disability Index; 2 Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale; 5 intraoperative complications (dural tear and misplacement); 6 postoperative complications (hematoma, infection, adjacent segment disease and fracture); and 4 fusion rate studies were included. The unstandardized mean difference of back and leg pain VAS and Oswestry Disability Index of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw fixation was -0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.46, 2.19), -0.46 (95% CI: -1.21, 0.29), and -1.64 (95% CI: -4.17, 0.89) scores lower than PS fixation for PLIF, but without statistical significance. Whereas PLIF with CBT screw fixation was insignificant higher Japanese Orthopaedic Association score of 0.87 (95% CI: -0.06, 1.81) when compared with PS fixation. CBT had a statistically significantly lower chance of postoperative complications by 0.49 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.95) when compared with PS fixation technique. However, CBT had no insignificant lower chance of intraoperative complication by 0.82 (95% CI: 0.28, 2.41) when compared with the PS technique. CONCLUSIONS: PLIF with CBT screw fixation had postoperative back and leg pain, disabilities, and function score.