Advertisement

Surgical Interventions for Spine Pain Management

  • Andrew B. Pham
  • Louis G. JenisEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Surgical intervention is often considered as the last option for patients suffering from significant spinal pain syndromes. In the absence of progressive neurological compromise or spinal deformity, most patients undergo an aggressive course of nonoperative treatment which tends to be very favorable in prognosis. Numerous nonoperative options are available; however, if these options have been exhausted and the patient continues to suffer from significant pain, disability, and/or neurological loss of function, then surgical options are discussed. Clinical outcomes are optimized by appropriateness of surgical intervention, proper identification of pain source, and patient preparation. Patients need to be medically and physically optimized and counseled at length regarding the risks and benefits of surgery as a form of shared decision-making. This chapter will focus on surgical intervention and options for decompression and stabilization in those patients suffering from pain syndrome.

Keywords

Spine surgery Fusion Decompression Laminectomy Laminoplasty Interbody fusion Disc replacement Minimally invasive surgery Osteotomies 

References

  1. 1.
    Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine. 2008;33(25):2789–800. (Four-year follow-up of the full SPORT study group revealed that relief of symptoms was more rapid with surgery).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine. 2005;30(8):936–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM, Duranceau J, Oxland T, Crisco JJ. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine. 1990;15(11):1142–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee KK, Teo EC, Qiu TX, Yang K. Effect of facetectomy on lumbar spinal stability under sagittal plane loadings. Spine. 2004;29(15):1624–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang Y, Liang C, Tao Y, Zhou X, Li H, Li F, et al. Cervical total disc replacement is superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0117826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheung KMC, Mak KC, Luk KDK. Anterior approach to cervical spine. Spine. 2012;37(5):E297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun Y, Li L, Zhao J, Gu R. Comparison between anterior approaches and posterior approaches for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;134:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) observational cohort. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2451–9. (Patients in the observation cohort of the study were treated without randomization. Outcomes for surgery were favorable.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiltse LL. The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1973;91:48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malhotra D, Kalb S, Rodriguez-Martinez N, Hem DD, Perez-Orribo L, Crawford NR, et al. Instrumentation of the posterior thoracolumbar spine. Neurosurgery. 2014;10:497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lunardini DJ, Eskander MS, Even JL, Dunlap JT, Chen AF, Lee JY. Vertebral artery injuries in cervical spine surgery. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1520–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burkhardt J-K, Mannion AF, Marbacher S, Kleinstück FS, Jeszenszky D, Porchet F. The influence of cervical plate fixation with either autologous bone or cage insertion on radiographic and patient-rated outcomes after two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2014;24(1):113–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shriver MF, Lewis DJ, Kshettry VR, Rosenbaum BP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Pseudoarthrosis rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Spine J. 2015;15(9):2016–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery. 2001;48(3):569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington ALA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2001;26(5):567–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joseph SA, Moreno AP, Brandoff J, Casden AC, Kuflik P, Neuwirth MG. Sagittal plane deformity in the adult patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(6):378–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R. Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg Spine. 2002;97(2):213–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park P, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryNewton Wellesley HospitalNewtonUSA

Personalised recommendations