Laser-guided lumbar medial branch kryorhizotomy

The authors describe a modification of the medial branch kryorhizotomy technique for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome using a fluoroscopy-based laser-guided method. A total of 32 patients suffering from lumbar facet joint syndrome confirmed by positive medial nerve block underwent conventional or laser-guided kryorhizotomy. The procedural time (20.6 +/- 1.0 vs 16.3 +/- 0.9 minutes, p < 0.01), fluoroscopy time (54.1 +/- 3.5 vs 28.2 +/- 2.4 seconds, p < 0.01), radiation dose (407.5 +/- 32.0 vs 224.1 +/- 20.3 cGy/cm(2), p < 0.01), and patient discomfort during the procedure (7.1 +/- 0.4 vs 5.2 +/- 0.4 on the visual analog scale, p < 0.01) were significantly reduced in the laser-guided group. There was a tendency for a better positioning accuracy when the laser guidance method was used (3.0 +/- 0.3 vs 2.2 +/- 0.3 mm of deviation from the target points, p > 0.05). No difference in the outcome was observed between the 2 groups of patients (visual analog scale score 3.5 +/- 0.2 vs 3.3 +/- 0.3, p > 0.05). This improved minimally invasive surgical technique offers advantages to conventional fluoroscopy-based kryorhizotomy.

Evaluative comparison of physician-based vs. patient-based outcomes in posterior lumbar fusion

Posterior lumbar fusion is a frequently performed procedure in spinal surgery. High percentages of good and excellent results are indicated by physicians. On the other hand patient-based outcomes are reported. Little is known about the correlations of these two assessment types. We aimed at their comparison. The analysis included 1013 patients with degenerative spinal disease or spondylolisthesis from an international spine registry, treated with posterior lumbar fusion. All patients were pre/postop assessed by physician-based McNab criteria (‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’). Of these patients, 210 (mean age 61 years; 57% females) were in addition assessed by patient-based Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The remaining 803 patients (mean age 59 years; 56% females) were assessed by patient-based Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI), including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain as well as verbal self-rating (‘helped a lot’, ‘helped’, ‘helped only little’, ‘didn’t help’, ‘made things worse’). McNab criteria were compared to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in ODI (12.8), in VAS back (1.2) and leg pain (1.6). We investigated the correlations between McNab criteria and these patient-based outcomes. In the ‘excellent’ group as rated by physicians, the proposed MCID was reached in 83% of patients for ODI, in 69% for VAS back and in 83% for VAS leg pain. All patients said the treatment had ‘helped’ or ‘helped a lot’. In the ‘good’ group 56% (ODI), 66% (back pain) and 86% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 96% of patients perceived the treatment as positive. In the ‘fair’ group 37% (ODI), 55% (back pain) and 63% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 49% had positive treatment considerations. The ‘poor’ group revealed 30% (ODI), 35% (back pain) and 44% (leg pain) of patients with reached MCID. Only 15% rated the treatment as positive. The Spearman correlation coefficients between McNab criteria on the one hand and ODI, back and leg pain as well as patients’ verbal self-rating on the other hand were 0.57, 0.37, 0.36 and 0.46 respectively. The comparison of physician and patient-based outcomes showed the highest correlations between McNab criteria and ODI, somewhat weaker correlations with patients’ self-rating and the weakest correlations with back and leg pain. Based on these findings, physicians’ evaluation of patient outcomes can be considered a valuable part of patient assessment, corresponding very well with patients’ perceptions of success or failure of spinal surgery.