Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).

BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery. METHOD: Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described. RESULTS: The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT.

Background: Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective: The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design: This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting: National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions: Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results: The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions: The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cervical brachialgia is pain that starts in the neck and passes down into the arm. Although most people with cervical brachialgia recover quickly, in some patients pain persists, and in 15% of patients pain is so severe that they are unable to work. In the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial, we investigated two neck surgeries used to treat this problem: posterior cervical foraminotomy (surgery from the back of the neck) and anterior cervical discectomy (surgery from the front of the neck). This trial aimed to find out if one of them is better than the other at relieving pain and more cost-effective for the National Health Service. We assessed patients' quality of life 1 year after their surgery and how their pain changed over the course of the year. We also measured the number of complications patients had in the first 6 weeks after their operation. Recruitment was slow and so the trial was stopped early, after only 23 patients from 11 hospitals had been randomly allocated to the two surgery groups. We had planned to recruit 252 participants to the trial; the number of participants we were able to recruit in practice was too small to enable us to determine which surgery is better at relieving pain. To find out why the trial had struggled to recruit, we asked hospital staff and participants about their experiences. We found that hospital staff sometimes struggled to organise everything needed to randomise patients on the day of surgery. Some staff also found it difficult to randomise patients as they had an opinion on which surgery they thought the patient should receive. The data collected in the trial will still be useful to help design future research. Finding out which surgery is better at relieving pain remains important, and the data we have collected will support answering this question in future.

Current surgical practice for multi-level degenerative cervical myelopathy: Findings from an international survey of spinal surgeons.

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) results from compression of the cervical spine cord as a result of age related changes in the cervical spine, and affects up to 2% of adults, leading to progressive disability. Surgical decompression is the mainstay of treatment, but there remains significant variation in surgical approaches used. This survey was conducted in order to define current practice amongst spine surgeons worldwide, as a possible prelude to further studies comparing surgical approaches. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed and piloted by the investigators using SurveyMonkey. Collected data was categorical and is presented using summary statistics. Where applicable, statistical comparisons were made using a Chi-Squared test. The level of significance for all statistical analyses was defined as p < 0.05. All analysis, including graphs was performed using R (R Studio). RESULTS: 127 surgeons, from 30 countries completed the survey; principally UK (66, 52%) and North America (15, 12%). Respondents were predominantly Neurosurgeons by training (108, 85%) of whom 84 (75%) reported Spinal Surgery as the principal part of their practice. The majority indicated they selected their surgical procedure for multi-level DCM on a case by case basis (62, 49%). Overall, a posterior approach was more popular for multi-level DCM (74, 58%). Region, speciality or annual multi-level case load did not influence this significantly. However, there was a trend for North American surgeons to be more likely to favour a posterior approach. CONCLUSIONS: A posterior approach was favoured and more commonly used to treat multi-level DCM, in an international cohort of surgeons. Posterior techniques including laminectomy, laminectomy and fusion or laminoplasty appeared to be equally popular.

Spontaneous Posterior Subdural Pyogenic Escherichia coli Abscess Secondary to Lumbar Spondylodiscitis.

Pyogenic subdural spinal collections are rare but an important pathology to recognise and manage appropriately. We report the case of a 56-year-old female who developed a posterior subdural spinal collection associated with local discitis. There was no direct communication between the infected disc and subdural space, and the collection was located posteriorly within the subdural space which makes this case all the more unusual. We discuss the need for spinal subdural collections to be considered as a differential in patients with back pain and lower limb neurology (especially when there is a known spinal infective focus), the importance of careful interpretation of imaging, and the pathophysiological mechanisms and organisms known to cause spinal subdural collections.

Systematic review of radiological cervical foraminal grading systems.

The study design of this paper is systematic review. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the existing radiological grading systems that are used to assess cervical foraminal stenosis. The importance of imaging the cervical spine using CT or MRI in evaluating cervical foraminal stenosis is widely accepted; however, there is no consensus for standardized methodology to assess the compression of the cervical nerve roots. A systematic search of Ovid Medline databases, Embase 1947 to present, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ISRCTN and WHO international clinical trials was performed for reports of cervical foraminal stenosis published before 01 February 2020. In collaboration with the University of Leeds, a search strategy was developed. A total of 6952 articles were identified with 59 included. Most of the reports involved multiple imaging modalities with standard axial and sagittal imaging used most. The grading themes that came from this systematic review show that the most mature for cervical foraminal stenosis is described by (Kim et al. Korean J Radiol 16:1294, 2015) and (Park et al. Br J Radiol 86:20120515, 2013). Imaging of the cervical nerve root canals is mostly performed using MRI and is reported using subjective terminology. The Park, Kim and Modified Kim systems for classifying the degree of stenosis of the nerve root canal have been described. Clinical application of these scoring systems is limited by their reliance on nonstandard imaging (Park), limited validation against clinical symptoms and surgical outcome data. Oblique fine cut images derived from three dimensional MRI datasets may yield more consistency, better clinical correlation, enhanced surgical decision-making and outcomes.

Rapid Growth of a Facet Joint Cyst Mimicking an Aggressive Tumor in the Lumbar Spine.

A 67-year-old patient with a history of fully treated bowel carcinoma presented with a short history of unilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy. No neurological deficit was found on examination. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated initially L4/5 foraminal narrowing that was believed to be the cause for the patient's symptoms; however, a nerve root block led to no improvement in symptoms. MRI was repeated at 5 months and demonstrated a mass causing compression of the S1 nerve. However, the patient declined surgical decompression. MRI at 14 months subsequently showed rapid growth of the lesion suggestive of an aggressive process such as a metastatic lesion or even a nerve sheath tumor such as a Schwannoma. Open biopsy and decompression revealed the lesion to be a facet joint cyst and the patient recovered well and had satisfactory postoperative imaging at 3 months follow-up. There are no reports in the literature of facet joint cysts growing this quickly and thus mimicking other forms of lesion.

Outcome and prognostic features in paediatric pineoblastomas: analysis of cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (1990-2007).

BACKGROUND: Paediatric pineoblastomas are rare central nervous system tumours. Patient and treatment factors associated with outcome are poorly defined and limited to small retrospective case series and single case reports. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry, we investigated clinical and pathological factors associated with outcome in paediatric pineoblastomas. Paediatric patients (< 16 years old) with pineoblastomas diagnosed between 1990 and 2007 were identified from the SEER database. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox models were used to examine the effect of variables on overall survival. The variables analysed included patient's age at diagnosis, gender, race, tumour spread and size, surgical resection and the use of adjuvant radiotherapy. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were identified from the database. Twelve patients were excluded as 11 had no surgery and one patient was excluded as the surgical status was unknown. Analysis of the remaining 66 patients revealed a median age at diagnosis of 5.5 years. Three patients underwent biopsy. Seventeen patients underwent full and partial resection, respectively. A further 46 patients underwent surgery the nature of which was not recorded. Thirty-nine patients (59.1%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Eight patients (12.1%) had both surgery (full or partial resection) and radiotherapy. The median overall survival was 40.5 months. Univariate analysis demonstrated that older age at diagnosis was the only positive predictor of overall survival. CONCLUSION: This study represents the largest analysis of paediatric pineoblastomas to date. The only clinically relevant prognostic factor was older age at diagnosis. The role of surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy on overall survival remains to be defined.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of brachialgia: the Leeds spinal unit experience (2008-2013).

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of cervical brachialgia utilising anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) is a controversial area in spinal surgery. Previous studies are limited by utilisation of non-validated outcome measures and, importantly, absence of pre-operative analysis to ensure both groups are matched. The authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of ACDF and PCF using validated outcome measures. To our knowledge, it is the first study in the literature to do this. METHODS: The authors conducted a 5-year retrospective review (2008-2013) of outcomes following both the above procedures and also compared the effectiveness of both techniques. Patients with myelopathy and large central discs were excluded. The main outcome variables measured were the neck disability index (NDI) and visual analogue scores (VAS) for neck and arm pain pre-operatively and again at 2-year follow-up. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Student t-tests were used to test differences. RESULTS: A total of 150 ACDFs and 51 PCFs were performed for brachialgia. There was no differences in the pre-operative NDI, VAS neck and arm scores between both groups (p > 0.05). As expected, both ACDF and PCF delivered statistically significant improvement in NDI, VAS-neck and VAS-arm scores. The degree of improvement of NDI, VAS-neck and VAS-arm were the same between both groups of patients (p > 0.05) with a trend favouring the PCF group. In the ACDF group, two (1.3 %) patients needed repeat ACDF due to adjacent segment disease. One patient (0.7 %) needed further decompression via a foraminotomy. In the PCF group one (2.0 %) patient needed ACDF due to persistent brachialgia. CONCLUSIONS: We found both interventions delivered similar improvements in the VAS and NDI scores in patients. Both techniques may be appropriately utilised when treating a patient with cervical brachialgia.

A rare case of anterior sacral meningocoele presenting as cauda equina syndrome.

The authors present a case of anterior sacral meningocoele demonstrating a clinical picture of cauda equina syndrome. To the best of our knowledge, such presentation has not yet been reported.

Evolving instrumentation for endoscopic tumour removal of CNS tumours.

BACKGROUND: Open surgical approaches to intraventricular tumours are complex and challenging. Neuro-endoscopy, however, has enabled us to biopsy and resect small intraventricular tumours with potentially reduced morbidity. Nevertheless, suitable methods/ instrumentation for resection have limited the use of the endoscope. The authors report the utilisation of endoscopic ultrasonic aspirator in the resection of an intraventricular tumour. This technique was compared to another case that utilised conventional endoscopic techniques for removal of an intraventricular tumour. METHODS: Using an endoscope, the third ventricle was entered and visualised, with the tumours clearly seen. Tumours were then either debulked via conventional or novel technique. RESULTS: Using the conventional technique, tumour was removed with rongeurs via the flexible scope. Irrigation was needed to improve vision due to bleeding. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed good excision. Histology was reported as anaplastic ependymoma World Health Organization (WHO) Grade III. Utilising the novel technique, the tumour was also debulked uneventfully. Histology confirmed Grade 1 glioneuronal tumour. Postoperative MRI revealed a small residuum. CONCLUSIONS: To date, endoscopic resection of tumours has been limited by suitable tools. The advent of an ultrasonic aspirator that can be used down an endoscope increases the possibilities for such resections. This is the first reported case of endoscopic resection of an intraventricular tumour using this technique.

Utilisation of intra-operative Doppler in the localisation of pericallosal artery during functional hemispherotomies for epilepsy: technical note.

Functional hemispherotomy is an established technique for treating epilepsy secondary to hemispheric pathology. Corpus callosotomy and frontobasal disconnection are integral parts of this operation. To perform this, localisation of the pericallosal artery through the medial ventricular wall and subpial exposure of the A2 and A1 are required. Here, the authors present how intra-operative Doppler can be useful in helping to localise these arteries in the setting of abnormal neuroanatomy and significant brain shift.

Outcome and prognostic features in adult pineoblastomas: analysis of cases from the SEER database.

BACKGROUND: Adult pineoblastomas (PBL) are rare central nervous system tumors. Patient and treatment factors associated with outcome are poorly defined and limited to small retrospective case series and single case reports. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry, we investigated clinicopathological factors associated with outcome in adult PBL. METHODS: Adult patients (≥16 years old) with PBL diagnosed between 1990 and 2007 were identified from the SEER database. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox models were used to examine the effect of variables on overall survival. The variables analyzed included patient's age at diagnosis, gender, race, tumor location, uni-focal or multi-focal tumor, tumor size, surgical resection, and the use of adjuvant radiotherapy. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were identified, with a median age at diagnosis of 39.2 years. Sixty-one patients (64 %) underwent surgery and 44 patients (47.4 %) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Forty-two patients (44 %) had both surgery and radiotherapy. The median overall survival was 176 months. Univariate analysis identified younger age at diagnosis, uni-focal and localized disease as important predictors of overall survival. On multivariate analysis, only age at diagnosis and localized disease emerged as important prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the numerous limitations of the SEER database, this study represents the largest analysis of adult PBL to date. Clinically relevant prognostic factors were younger age of diagnosis and localized disease. The role of surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy remains to be defined. Our data suggest these treatment modalities may not influence overall survival.

Outcome and prognostic features in anaplastic ganglioglioma: analysis of cases from the SEER database.

Anaplastic ganglioglioma (AGG) are rare central nervous system tumours. Patient and treatment factors associated with outcome are poorly defined and limited to small retrospective case series and single case reports. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry, we investigated potential clinicopathological factors that can affect outcome in patients with anaplastic ganglioglioma. Patients with anaplastic ganglioglioma diagnosed between 1973 and 2007 were identified from the SEER database. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox models were used to examine the effect of variables on overall survival. The variables analysed included patient age at diagnosis, gender, race, tumour location, uni-focal or multi-focal tumour, surgical resection and the use of adjuvant radiotherapy. Fifty-eight patients were identified, with a median age at diagnosis of 25.5 years. Ninety-three percent of patients underwent surgery and 36% received adjuvant radiotherapy. The median overall survival was 28.5 months. The most common tumour site was the temporal lobe (27%). Univariate and multivariate analysis identified surgery and uni-focal disease as important predictors of overall survival. Adjuvant radiotherapy did not influence overall survival. This study represents the largest analysis of anaplastic ganglioglioma to date. Furthermore it also emphasises the role of national tumour databases for furthering our understanding of rare brain tumours and determining management options.