A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompressio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of personalized medicine 2022-06, Vol.12 (7), p.1065
Hauptverfasser: Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe, Abraham, Ivo, Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe, Telfeian, Albert E, Lorio, Morgan P, Hellinger, Stefan, Knight, Martin, De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira, Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas, Dowling, Álvaro, Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel, Muhammad, Fauziyya, Hussain, Namath, Yamamoto, Vicky, Kateb, Babak, Yeung, Anthony
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1065
container_title Journal of personalized medicine
container_volume 12
creator Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe
Abraham, Ivo
Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe
Telfeian, Albert E
Lorio, Morgan P
Hellinger, Stefan
Knight, Martin
De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira
Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas
Dowling, Álvaro
Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel
Muhammad, Fauziyya
Hussain, Namath
Yamamoto, Vicky
Kateb, Babak
Yeung, Anthony
description Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundar
doi_str_mv 10.3390/jpm12071065
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9320410</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2694017224</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-88039f107fb0e17b260ea3ecbd44f8b197ddb3292fcc9b12177b1a2bbdd1f87f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdklFv0zAQxwMCsWnsCYlHdNJehqBgO2mT8IBUlW1UKmpFC6-R7VyKK8cOtlNUPj1uV6aCX3w-_-5_5_MlyQtK3qVpSd5vupYyklMyGj5OzqM1HGQZGz05sc-SS-83JK5iyNiIPEvO0mFR5MMRO3_0cgwLZzvrsYYFOm8N1-p3PCw7ZRAm3OEeCFZaDdcH51I6RPMagoWVQx7gu_L9MWrBlYE7NOh4sM5_gLGBqda9D9GhtgjL0Nc7mNi2406ZNUy0MkpyDfM-SNuiB26ijPXBdniM-YpH2xoPAsOvmB5W3K0xxJQ3prZe2k5JmPWt4A4-YVTqHHofI2DZR9Dt3sKXmKnlWu9garbc75VXs-ntIeG8i5Iz3sbnyWDb3fPkacO1x8vjfpF8u71ZTT4PZvO76WQ8G8iMlGFQFCQtG0ryRhCkuYjdRZ6iFHWWNYWgZV7XImUla6QsBWU0zwXlTIi6pk2RN-lF8vFet-tFi7VEExulq87FSt2uslxV_94Y9aNa221VpoxklESB66OAsz979KFqlZeoNTdoe1-xUTlkZVpkNKJX_6Eb27v43wcqIzRnLIvUm3tKOuu9w-ahGEqq_chVJyMX6Ven9T-wfwcs_QN4udkK</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2694017224</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe ; Abraham, Ivo ; Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe ; Telfeian, Albert E ; Lorio, Morgan P ; Hellinger, Stefan ; Knight, Martin ; De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira ; Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas ; Dowling, Álvaro ; Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel ; Muhammad, Fauziyya ; Hussain, Namath ; Yamamoto, Vicky ; Kateb, Babak ; Yeung, Anthony</creator><creatorcontrib>Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe ; Abraham, Ivo ; Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe ; Telfeian, Albert E ; Lorio, Morgan P ; Hellinger, Stefan ; Knight, Martin ; De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira ; Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas ; Dowling, Álvaro ; Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel ; Muhammad, Fauziyya ; Hussain, Namath ; Yamamoto, Vicky ; Kateb, Babak ; Yeung, Anthony</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p &lt; 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p &lt; 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p &lt; 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p &lt; 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2075-4426</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2075-4426</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/jpm12071065</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35887562</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Back surgery ; Bone surgery ; Clinical outcomes ; Decompression ; Endoscopy ; Generators ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Natural history ; Pain ; Pain management ; Patients ; Precision medicine ; Spinal stenosis ; Spine (lumbar) ; Survival</subject><ispartof>Journal of personalized medicine, 2022-06, Vol.12 (7), p.1065</ispartof><rights>2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 by the authors. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-88039f107fb0e17b260ea3ecbd44f8b197ddb3292fcc9b12177b1a2bbdd1f87f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-88039f107fb0e17b260ea3ecbd44f8b197ddb3292fcc9b12177b1a2bbdd1f87f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7842-2914 ; 0000-0002-5224-4977</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9320410/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9320410/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35887562$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abraham, Ivo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Telfeian, Albert E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorio, Morgan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hellinger, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knight, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dowling, Álvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhammad, Fauziyya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussain, Namath</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Vicky</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kateb, Babak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeung, Anthony</creatorcontrib><title>A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy</title><title>Journal of personalized medicine</title><addtitle>J Pers Med</addtitle><description>Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p &lt; 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p &lt; 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p &lt; 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p &lt; 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.</description><subject>Back surgery</subject><subject>Bone surgery</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Decompression</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Generators</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Natural history</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain management</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Precision medicine</subject><subject>Spinal stenosis</subject><subject>Spine (lumbar)</subject><subject>Survival</subject><issn>2075-4426</issn><issn>2075-4426</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdklFv0zAQxwMCsWnsCYlHdNJehqBgO2mT8IBUlW1UKmpFC6-R7VyKK8cOtlNUPj1uV6aCX3w-_-5_5_MlyQtK3qVpSd5vupYyklMyGj5OzqM1HGQZGz05sc-SS-83JK5iyNiIPEvO0mFR5MMRO3_0cgwLZzvrsYYFOm8N1-p3PCw7ZRAm3OEeCFZaDdcH51I6RPMagoWVQx7gu_L9MWrBlYE7NOh4sM5_gLGBqda9D9GhtgjL0Nc7mNi2406ZNUy0MkpyDfM-SNuiB26ijPXBdniM-YpH2xoPAsOvmB5W3K0xxJQ3prZe2k5JmPWt4A4-YVTqHHofI2DZR9Dt3sKXmKnlWu9garbc75VXs-ntIeG8i5Iz3sbnyWDb3fPkacO1x8vjfpF8u71ZTT4PZvO76WQ8G8iMlGFQFCQtG0ryRhCkuYjdRZ6iFHWWNYWgZV7XImUla6QsBWU0zwXlTIi6pk2RN-lF8vFet-tFi7VEExulq87FSt2uslxV_94Y9aNa221VpoxklESB66OAsz979KFqlZeoNTdoe1-xUTlkZVpkNKJX_6Eb27v43wcqIzRnLIvUm3tKOuu9w-ahGEqq_chVJyMX6Ven9T-wfwcs_QN4udkK</recordid><startdate>20220629</startdate><enddate>20220629</enddate><creator>Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe</creator><creator>Abraham, Ivo</creator><creator>Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe</creator><creator>Telfeian, Albert E</creator><creator>Lorio, Morgan P</creator><creator>Hellinger, Stefan</creator><creator>Knight, Martin</creator><creator>De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira</creator><creator>Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas</creator><creator>Dowling, Álvaro</creator><creator>Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel</creator><creator>Muhammad, Fauziyya</creator><creator>Hussain, Namath</creator><creator>Yamamoto, Vicky</creator><creator>Kateb, Babak</creator><creator>Yeung, Anthony</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7842-2914</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5224-4977</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220629</creationdate><title>A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy</title><author>Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe ; Abraham, Ivo ; Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe ; Telfeian, Albert E ; Lorio, Morgan P ; Hellinger, Stefan ; Knight, Martin ; De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira ; Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas ; Dowling, Álvaro ; Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel ; Muhammad, Fauziyya ; Hussain, Namath ; Yamamoto, Vicky ; Kateb, Babak ; Yeung, Anthony</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-88039f107fb0e17b260ea3ecbd44f8b197ddb3292fcc9b12177b1a2bbdd1f87f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Back surgery</topic><topic>Bone surgery</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Decompression</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Generators</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Natural history</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain management</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Precision medicine</topic><topic>Spinal stenosis</topic><topic>Spine (lumbar)</topic><topic>Survival</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abraham, Ivo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Telfeian, Albert E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorio, Morgan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hellinger, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knight, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dowling, Álvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhammad, Fauziyya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussain, Namath</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Vicky</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kateb, Babak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeung, Anthony</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of personalized medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe</au><au>Abraham, Ivo</au><au>Ramírez León, Jorge Felipe</au><au>Telfeian, Albert E</au><au>Lorio, Morgan P</au><au>Hellinger, Stefan</au><au>Knight, Martin</au><au>De Carvalho, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira</au><au>Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas</au><au>Dowling, Álvaro</au><au>Rodriguez Garcia, Manuel</au><au>Muhammad, Fauziyya</au><au>Hussain, Namath</au><au>Yamamoto, Vicky</au><au>Kateb, Babak</au><au>Yeung, Anthony</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy</atitle><jtitle>Journal of personalized medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Pers Med</addtitle><date>2022-06-29</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1065</spage><pages>1065-</pages><issn>2075-4426</issn><eissn>2075-4426</eissn><abstract>Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p &lt; 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p &lt; 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p &lt; 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p &lt; 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>35887562</pmid><doi>10.3390/jpm12071065</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7842-2914</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5224-4977</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2075-4426
ispartof Journal of personalized medicine, 2022-06, Vol.12 (7), p.1065
issn 2075-4426
2075-4426
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9320410
source PubMed Central Open Access; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Back surgery
Bone surgery
Clinical outcomes
Decompression
Endoscopy
Generators
Magnetic resonance imaging
Natural history
Pain
Pain management
Patients
Precision medicine
Spinal stenosis
Spine (lumbar)
Survival
title A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T19%3A36%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Proposed%20Personalized%20Spine%20Care%20Protocol%20(SpineScreen)%20to%20Treat%20Visualized%20Pain%20Generators:%20An%20Illustrative%20Study%20Comparing%20Clinical%20Outcomes%20and%20Postoperative%20Reoperations%20between%20Targeted%20Endoscopic%20Lumbar%20Decompression%20Surgery,%20Minimally%20Invasive%20TLIF%20and%20Open%20Laminectomy&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20personalized%20medicine&rft.au=Lewandrowski,%20Kai-Uwe&rft.date=2022-06-29&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1065&rft.pages=1065-&rft.issn=2075-4426&rft.eissn=2075-4426&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/jpm12071065&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2694017224%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2694017224&rft_id=info:pmid/35887562&rfr_iscdi=true