Tag: Fusion surgery

Posted on

Lumbar Synovial Cysts—Should You Fuse or Not?

Neurosurgery 92:1013–1020, 2023

Spinal synovial cysts are lesions that most commonly occur in the lumbar region. The need for an instrumented spinal fusion in addition to lumbar decompression with removal of the synovial cyst is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that select patients who underwent decompression with instrumented fusion for lumbar synovial cysts would be less likely to have subsequent surgery (SS) in a 2-year period than patients treated with laminectomy alone.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed using IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Patients who had a lumbar synovial cyst diagnosis and laminectomy surgery with or without fusion surgery were included in this study. Patients were tracked for SS 2 years after surgery. Laminectomy patients were propensity score–matched to laminectomy with fusion (LF) patients using a 2:1 ratio. The log-rank test and Cox regression were used to compare the cumulative incidence of SS between groups.

RESULTS: There were 7664 and 1631 patients treated with laminectomy and LF before matching. After matching, there were 2212 laminectomy and 1631 LF patients and patient characteristics were balanced. The 2-year incidence of recurrent SS was 3.1% ([CI]: 2.2%, 4.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9%, 2.5%) laminectomy and LF, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, LF had a statistically significant lower risk of recurrent SS (hazard ratio: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.32-0.97]; P-value: .04).

CONCLUSION: All patients who had concomitant lumbar fusion showed decreased chance of having a cyst- or noncyst-related recurrence SS when compared with all patients undergoing laminectomy alone, regardless of diagnosis at the time of SS.

Posted on

Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review

Eur Spine J (2011) 20:177–184. DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7

Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been increasingly used as an alternative to fusion surgery in patients with pain or neurological symptoms in the cervical spine who do not respond to non-surgical treatment.

A systematic literature review has been conducted to evaluate whether CTDR is more efficacious and safer than fusion or non-surgical treatment. Published evidence up to date is summarised qualitatively according to the GRADE methodology.

After 2 years of follow-up, studies demonstrated statistically significant non-inferiority of CTDR versus fusion with respect to the composite outcome ‘overall success’. Single patient relevant endpoints such as pain, disability or quality of life improved in both groups with no superiority of CTDR. Both technologies showed similar complication rates. No evidence is available for the comparison between CTDR and non-surgical treatment. In the long run improvement of health outcomes seems to be similar in CTDR and fusion, however, the study quality is often severely limited. After both interventions, many patients still face problems. A difficulty per se is the correct diagnosis and indication for surgical interventions in the cervical spine. CTDR is no better than fusion in alleviating symptoms related to disc degeneration in the cervical spine. In the context of limited resources, a net cost comparison may be sensible.

So far, CTDR is not recommended for routine use. As many trials are ongoing, reevaluation at a later date will be required. Future research needs to address the relative effectiveness between CTDR and conservative treatment.

Proudly powered by WordPress