Background: Fenestration discectomy, for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, is the most common surgical procedure in spine surgery. It can be done by open or microscopic procedures. This study compared the results of fenestration microdiscectomy with open fenestration discectomy in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation as a relation to the functional outcome, leg pain, back pain, hospital stay, returns to daily activity, cost, recurrence, reoperation and type of surgery for recurrent disc herniation. Methods: 60 patients age (29-50 years), with L4-L5 disc herniation, are divided randomly into group A-30 patients underwent an open fenestration discectomy-and group B-30 patients underwent fenestration microdiscectomy. All patients are assessed at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months after surgery for Oswestry disability index and Visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain and followed up for 4 years. Results: In both groups, all patients have minimal disability by Oswestry Disability Index after surgery. There were significant differences between means of post-operative Visual Analogue Scale for back pain between these two groups after 1 week (3.7 in group A versus 2.2 in group B) (t = 13.28, P = < 0.001*) and after 3 months (1.73 in group A versus 0.43 in group B) (t = 10.54, P = < 0.001*). There were no significant differences between two groups regarding post-operative VAS for leg pain, recurrence (5 patients in group A versus 4 patients in group B) and reoperation rate (2 patients in each group). There were significant differences between means of length of hospital stay (2.10 in group A versus 1.06 in group B) (P < 0.001), time of returning to daily activities (7.33 in group A versus 4.03 in group B) (P < 0.001) and cost of surgery (1996.66 in group A versus 3003.3 in group B) (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Use of microscope in fenestration discectomy for treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation can achieve the same goals of open fenestration regarding nerve root decompression and relief of leg pain with advantage of less back pain, less hospital staying and early return to daily activities with disadvantage of more cost with the use of microscope. With 4 years follow up, there was no significant deference in rate of recurrence and reoperation with the use of microscope but we found that type of surgery for recurrent cases may be less invasive

The use of tourniquet in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) had a lot of controversies with no clear agreement about the advantages and disadvantages of tourniquet. This study aims to show the effects of tourniquet use in TKA on the functional and clinical outcomes with follow-up of 5 years. This is a randomized, double-blind, and single-center study of 101 patients who were treated by TKA and divided randomly into two groups. Tourniquet was used in group A and was not used in group B. Both groups were assessed by Knee Society score (KSS), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), visual analogue scale (VAS) score for thigh pain, and postoperative complications. Both groups were followed up for 5 years. The group of no tourniquet showed significant better functional outcomes measured by KSS at postoperative periods of 2 weeks (p = 0.001), 6 weeks (p = 0.006), and 3 months (p = 0.034), and KOOS at postoperative periods of 2 weeks (p = 0.001), 6 weeks (p =0.001), and 3 months (p = 0.016). However, there was no significant difference in long-term follow-up of 5 years. There were significantly better results with use of tourniquet regarding surgeon's visualization during surgery, less operative time, and less calculated blood loss, while significantly better results with no use of tourniquet were reported regarding less hospital stay, less postoperative analgesic consumption, and less postoperative thigh pain measured by VAS score at postoperative periods of day 1 (p = 0.001), day 5 (p = 0.001), 2 weeks (p = 0.001), and 6 weeks (p = 0.001). Regarding postoperative blood transfusion and clinical deep venous thrombosis, there was no significant difference between use of tourniquet or not. The evidence presented in this level-1 randomized controlled trial suggests that no use of tourniquet in TKA can improve functional outcomes in early postoperative period with no significant difference on functional outcome at 5 years of follow-up.

Background Lumbar spinal stenosis most often results from a gradual, degenerative ageing process. Open or wide decompressive laminectomy was formerly the standard treatment. However, in recent years, a growing tendency towards less invasive decompressive procedures has emerged. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of microdecompression with those of open wide laminectomy and posterior stabilization for patients with symptomatic multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis who failed to respond to conservative treatment. Methods This randomized controlled study was conducted between January 2016 and October 2018. One hundred patients were involved in this study. All these patients suffered from radicular leg pain with MRI features of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis and were treated by conservative treatment of medical treatment and physiotherapy without benefit for 6 months. Those patients were divided into two groups: Group A, 50 microdecompression, and Group B, 50 patients who were treated by open wide laminectomy and posterior stabilization. Both groups of patients were followed up with ODI (Oswestry disability index) and VAS (visual analogue score) for the back and leg pain for one year. Results The results showed that both groups got significant improvement regarding the Oswestry disability index. Regarding back pain, there was a significant improvement in both groups with better results in group A due to minimal tissue injury as the advantage of the minimal invasive technique. In both groups, there was marked improvement of radicular leg pain postoperatively. Conclusions Both microdecompression and wide open laminectomy with posterior stabilization were effective in treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis with superior results of microdecompression regarding less back pain postoperatively with less blood loss and soft tissue dissection. Clinical trial number: NCT04087694.

Background: Fenestration discectomy, for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, is the most common surgical procedure in spine surgery. It can be done by open or microscopic procedures. This study compared the results of fenestration microdiscectomy with open fenestration discectomy in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation as a relation to the functional outcome, leg pain, back pain, hospital stay, returns to daily activity, cost, recurrence, reoperation and type of surgery for recurrent disc herniation.Methods: 60 patients age (29 - 50 years), with L4-L5 disc herniation, are divided randomly into group A- 30 patients underwent an open fenestration discectomy- and group B- 30 patients underwent fenestration microdiscectomy. All patients are assessed at 1 week, 3months, 6 months, 12 months after surgery for Oswestry disability index and Visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain and followed up for 4 years. Results: In both groups, all patients have minimal disability by Oswestry Disability Index after surgery.There were significant differences between means of post-operative VAS for back pain between these two groups after one weeks (3.7 in group A versus 2.2 in group B) (t= 13.28, P=<0.001٭) and after 3 months (1.73 in group A versus 0.43 in group B) (t=10.54, P=<0.001٭).There were no significant differences between two groups regarding post-operative VAS for leg pain, recurrence (5 patients in group A versus 4 patients in group B) and reoperation rate (2 patients in each group).There were significant differences between means of length of hospital stay (2.10 in group A versus 1.06 in group B) (P<0.001), time of returning to daily activities (7.33 in group A versus 4.03 in group B) (P<0.001) and cost of surgery (1996.66 in group A versus 3003.3 in group B) (P<0.001).Conclusion: Use of microscope in fenestration discectomy for treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation can achieve the same goals of open fenestration regarding nerve root decompression and relief of leg pain with advantage of less back pain, less hospital staying and early return to daily activities with disadvantage of more cost with the use of microscope. With 4 years follow up, there was no significant deference in rate of recurrence and reoperation with the use of microscope but we found that type of surgery for recurrent cases may be less invasive if microscope was used in primary surgery.Trial registration: NCT, NCT04112485. Registered 30 September 2019 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT04112485

No abstract