Objective To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusions Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

/pdf/an-update-of-comprehensive-evidence-based-guidelines-for-5cdrl3hsbh.pdf

An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations.

OBJECT Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are 2 currently popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis. The authors compare the total risk of each procedure, along with other important complication outcomes. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (up to May 2015) that reported complications of either MI-TLIF or LLIF were identified from a search in the PubMed database. The primary outcome was overall risk of complication per patient. Secondary outcomes included risks of sensory deficits, temporary neurological deficit, permanent neurological deficit, intraoperative complications, medical complications, wound complications, hardware failure, subsidence, and reoperation. RESULTS Fifty-four studies were included for analysis of MI-TLIF, and 42 studies were included for analysis of LLIF. Overall, there were 9714 patients (5454 in the MI-TLIF group and 4260 in the LLIF group) with 13,230 levels fused (6040 in the MI-TLIF group and 7190 in the LLIF group). A total of 1045 complications in the MI-TLIF group and 1339 complications in the LLIF group were reported. The total complication rate per patient was 19.2% in the MI-TLIF group and 31.4% in the LLIF group (p < 0.0001). The rate of sensory deficits and temporary neurological deficits, and permanent neurological deficits was 20.16%, 2.22%, and 1.01% for MI-TLIF versus 27.08%, 9.40%, and 2.46% for LLIF, respectively (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.002, respectively). Rates of intraoperative and wound complications were 3.57% and 1.63% for MI-TLIF compared with 1.93% and 0.80% for LLIF, respectively (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.034, respectively). No significant differences were noted for medical complications or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS While there was a higher overall complication rate with LLIF, MI-TLIF and LLIF both have acceptable complication profiles. LLIF had higher rates of sensory as well as temporary and permanent neurological symptoms, although rates of intraoperative and wound complications were less than MI-TLIF. Larger, prospective comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is of relative poor quality.

/pdf/comparison-of-complication-rates-of-minimally-invasive-4nkzh8qt6g.pdf

Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon's learning curve.

Minimally invasive procedures in spine surgery have undergone significant development in recent times. These procedures have the common aim of avoiding biomechanical complications associated with some traditional destructive methods and improving efficacy. These new techniques prevent damage to crucial posterior stabilizers and preserve the structural integrity and stability of the spine. The wide variety of reported minimally invasive methods for different pathologies necessitates a systematic classification. In the present review, authors first provide a classification system of minimally invasive techniques based on the location of the pathologic lesion to be treated, to help the surgeon in selecting the appropriate procedure. Minimally invasive techniques are then described in detail, including technical features, advantages, complications, and clinical outcomes, based on available literature.

Minimally invasive spine surgery: systematic review

Study design Case-control study. Purpose To evaluate clinical and radiological results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) performed with cortical bone trajectory (CBT) pedicle screw insertion with those of TLIF using 'conventional' or percutaneous pedicle screw insertion. Overview of literature CBT is a new trajectory for pedicle screw insertion in the lumbar spine; clinical and radiological results of TLIF using pedicle screws inserted with CBT are unclear. Methods In total, 26 patients (11 males, 15 females) were enrolled in this retrospective study and divided into three groups: TLIF with pedicle screw insertion by conventional minimally invasive methods via the Wiltse approach (M-TLIF, n=10), TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw insertion (P-TLIF, n=6), and TLIF with pedicle screw insertion with CBT (CBT-TLIF, n=10). Surgical results and preand postoperative radiological findings were evaluated and compared. Results Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less with CBT-TLIF (p=0.03) than with M-TLIF. Postoperative lordotic angles did not differ significantly among the three groups. Complete fusions were obtained in 10 of 12 levels (83%) with M-TLIF, in seven levels (100%) with P-TLIF, and in 10 of 11 levels (91%) with CBT-TLIF. On postoperative computed tomography, correct positioning was seen in 84.1% of M-TLIF screws, 88.5% of P-TLIF screws, and 90% of CBT-TLIF screws. Conclusions CBT-TLIF resulted in less blood loss and a shorter operative duration than M-TLIF or P-TLIF. Postoperative rates of bone union, maintenance of lordotic angles, and accuracy of pedicle screw positions were similar among the three groups.

/pdf/short-term-results-of-transforaminal-lumbar-interbody-fusion-3wngtwq7ph.pdf

Short-Term Results of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Pedicle Screw with Cortical Bone Trajectory Compared with Conventional Trajectory

Background Context Both open and minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgeries (MIS) are used to treat patients with symptomatic degenerative spinal pathologies. Open lumbar fusion surgery studies have reported excellent short-term safety and long-term clinical outcomes. MIS has shown excellent safety and short-term clinical success, but there is very little information on its long-term clinical durability. Purpose The purpose of this study was to document the long-term clinical durability and safety of patients treated with minimally invasive surgery—transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). Secondary purposes were to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients receiving fusion in 2 sequential lumbar disc segments (2-level) as compared with a single-level lumbar disc segment (1-level), and as an aside, to determine whether or not there were any differences in clinical outcomes in patients treated over the age of 60 years as compared with those under 60 years. Study Design This study was a retrospective review of prospective collected outcomes data. Patient Sample One hundred sixty-nine consecutive patients, with either isolated single-level or 2-level lumbar intervertebral segment pain manifested by back pain alone or back pain with leg pain associated with a primary diagnosis of degenerative spondylolisthesis, central herniated disc, central stenosis, Foraminal-lateral herniation of disc, Foraminal/lateral stenosis, or isolated degenerative disc or joint disease. Outcomes Measures Hospital stay time postoperative, return to work time, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog pain scores (VAS), pain medicine (narcotic) use, fusion status, and reoperation rate. Methods Patients treated with 1or 2-level MIS TLIF were evaluated based on clinical outcomes, reoperation rates, and fusion status out to an average of 49 months postoperative (range, 36 to 60 mo). Effect of the number of levels fused, patient age, and worker compensation status on outcome was also assessed. Results Average surgery time was 183 minutes, with no difference between older and younger patients. Hospital stay averaged 15 hours with a median return to work time of 8 weeks. Return to work for patients working before surgery was 97%. ODI improved 36% at the first follow-up and was improved 41% at 49 months postoperative (P Conclusions The results of this study support the long-term clinical effectiveness of MIS TLIF for varying diagnoses. These results suggest that those undergoing a 1-level or 2-level lumbar fusion improve equally, and that older patients do well with MIS surgery long term. Reoperation rates were acceptable, with excellent surgical durability at 49 months. The benefit of decompression was not assessed in this study, and future studies should assess its impact long term.

Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Michael Ferguson

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up.