RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Far lateral (extraforaminal) disc herniations comprise approximately 10% of symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. They represent operative challenges due to accessibility and surgical unfamiliarity. Surgical strategies in the past have included open discectomy and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Tubular microdiscectomies have gained traction due to their minimally invasive advantages, including reduced morbidity, pain and length of hospital stay. METHODS: We report our retrospective single institution consecutive case series of tubular far lateral microdiscectomies. One hundred and seventy-six patients were operated on over an eight-year period. Clinical outcomes were assessed after institutional ethics approval. We additionally describe our surgical technique with an illustrative video case. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 21 weeks, 77% of patients had good or excellent clinical outcomes according to the MacNab criteria. 12% of patients underwent reoperation at the index level for symptom recurrence or persistence. Mean length of hospital stay was 1.3 days. There was a 1% rate of both postoperative haematoma and infection. Mean operation duration was 86 minutes. CONCLUSION: This case series represents the largest currently reported in the literature. Minimally invasive microdiscectomies performed through tubes allow for precise localisation, reduced tissue disruption and favourable clinical outcomes. Our results appear consistent with a review of the literature, demonstrating the safety and efficacy of this approach.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Controversy remains with the use of post-operative subfascial drains for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, with limited guidelines and a paucity of conclusive evidence. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis was to analyse and collate an evidence summary to determine the efficacy of such drains. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline (2002-2022.11), PubMed (2003-2022.11), Scopus (2002-2022.11), Cochrane Library (2015-2022.11) databases and reference lists of articles was conducted as per Cochrane systematic reviews standards. All relevant RCTs and NRCTs were included in this study. Data was extracted in a standardised form and analysed with RevMan version 5.4.1. Bias was assessed with RoB2 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-E tool for NRCTs. RESULTS: Two RCTs (136 patients) and five NRCTs (7563 patients) were included. These had a moderate to high risk of bias, except for one very high-risk article. Meta-analysis results showed no significant differences for post-operative haematoma (P = 0.31), surgical site infection (P = 0.84), take back to theatre (P = 0.27), length of stay (P = 0.34), and estimated blood loss (P = 0.09). Dysphagia (P = 0.002) and median operative time (P = 0.02) were significantly increased in the drain cohort. CONCLUSION: The low quality of available data in the included studies is insufficient to estimate the effect of post-operative drains for elective spondylotic ACDF. The findings suggest that if the decision to leave a drain in is left to the surgeon, then there is no difference in the rates of POH, SSI, LOS, or take back to the theatre. The significant association of dysphagia and increased operative time with drains, and the non-significant trend towards increased EBL with drains, must be considered in the context in which procedures may influence the decision to place drains. The results could not be stratified by various confounders that affect the decision-making process, including the number of levels operated. Due to the decreased quality and amount of evidence available, large-scale RCTs that adequately account for confounders should be performed.