Spinal decompression

Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to assess the efficacy of nonsurgical spinal decompression achieved with motorized traction for chronic discogenic lumbosacral back pain. Design: Computer-aided systematic literature search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane collaboration for prospective clinical trials on adults with low back pain in the English literature from 1975 to October 2005. Methodologic quality for each study was assessed. Studies were included if the intervention group received motorized spinal decompression and the comparison group received sham or another type of nonsurgical treatment. Results: Data from 10 studies were fully analyzed. Seven studies were randomized controlled trials using various apparatus types. Because of this low number, we also analyzed three nonrandomized case series studies of spinal decompression systems. As the overall quality of studies was low and the patient groups heterogeneous, a meta-analysis was not appropriate and a qualitative review was undertaken. Sample sizes averaged 121 patients (range 27–292), with six of the seven randomized studies reporting no difference with motorized spinal decompression and one study reporting reduced pain but not disability. The three unrandomized studies (no control group) of motorized spinal decompression found a 77% to 86% reduction in pain. Conclusions: These data suggest that the efficacy of spinal decompression achieved with motorized traction for chronic discogenic low back pain remains unproved. This may be, in part, due to heterogeneous patient groups and the difficulties involved in properly blinding patients to the mechanical pulling mechanism. Scientifically more rigorous studies with better randomization, control groups, and standardized outcome measures are needed to overcome the limitations of past studies.

Abstract: Study design Retrospective case series on long-term follow-up results of original expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due to cervical spondylosis (CSM) and ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). Objectives To elucidate efficacy and problems of original open-door laminoplasty to improve future surgical outcomes. Summary of background data Little information is available on long-term outcomes of original open-door laminoplasty without grafts, implants, or instruments. Method The study group included 80 patients who underwent original open-door laminoplasty and were followed for minimum 10 years. Clinical results, including Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, recovery rates, occurrences of complications, and long-term deterioration were investigated. Cervical alignments, type of OPLL, cervical range of motion, anteroposterior diameter of spinal canal, and progression of OPLL were assessed on plain radiographs. Spinal cord decompression was verified on magnetic resonance imaging. Results Average Japanese Orthopedic Association score and recovery rate improved significantly until 3 years after surgery and remained at an acceptable level in both cervical spondylosis and OPLL patients with slight deterioration after 5 years. Segmental motor palsy developed in 8 patients. Late deterioration, mainly lower extremity motor score decline, developed in 8 CSM and 16 OPLL patients. Overall cervical range of motion decreased by 36%. Patients with cervical lordosis decreased gradually in both patient groups. Such changes in alignments did not affect surgical results in CSM patients, while OPLL patients with preoperative kyphosis had lower recovery rates than those with straight and lordotic alignments. OPLL progression that was detected in 66% of patients did not affect clinical results. Although infrequent, magnetic resonance imaging revealed atrophy of spinal cord, spinal cord compression at adjacent segments due to degenerative changes and OPLL progression. Conclusions Long-term results of open-door laminoplasty without bone graft, graft substitutes, or instruments were satisfactory. However, segmental motor paralysis, kyphosis, established before and after surgery, OPLL progression, and late deterioration due to age-related degeneration remain challenging problems.

Abstract: Lumbar foraminal stenosis is an important pathologic entity to identify in the patient being treated for radicular symptoms. This update reviews the anatomy, clinical presentation, neuroradiographic evaluation, and treatment of pathology located in the intervertebral foramen. Patients with significant leg pain refractory to conservative treatment and concordance between the demonstrated area of stenosis and radicular symptoms and signs are candidates for the decompressive procedures discussed. The role of arthrodesis and spinal instrumentation in the management of foraminal stenosis also is addressed.

Abstract: Study design A prospective analysis evaluating neurologic outcome after early versus late surgery for cervical spinal cord trauma. Objectives The study was conducted to determine whether neurologic and functional outcome is improved in traumatic cervical spinal cord-injured patients (C3-T1, American Spinal Injury Association grades A-D) who had early surgery ( 5 days after spinal cord injury). Summary of background data There is considerable controversy as to the appropriate timing of surgical decompression and stabilization for cervical spinal cord trauma. There have been numerous retrospective studies, but no prospective studies, to determine whether neurologic outcome is best after early versus late surgical treatment for cervical spinal cord injury. Methods Patients meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were randomized to an early ( 5 days after spinal cord injury) surgical treatment protocol. The neurologic and functional outcomes were recorded from the acute hospital admission to the most recent follow-up. Results Comparison of the two groups showed no significant difference in length of acute postoperative intensive care stay, length of inpatient rehabilitation, or improvement in American Spinal Injury Association grade or motor score between early (mean, 1.8 days) versus late (mean, 16.8 days) surgery. Conclusions The results of this study reveal no significant neurologic benefit when cervical spinal cord decompression after trauma is performed less than 72 hours after injury (mean, 1.8 days) as opposed to waiting longer than 5 days (mean, 16.8 days).