Due to demographic changes, a growing number of elderly patients with comorbidities will require spine surgery in the next decades. However, age and multimorbidity have been associated with considerably worse postoperative outcomes, and is often associated with surgical invasiveness. Full-endoscopic spine-surgery (FESS), as a cornerstone of contemporary minimally invasive surgery, has the potential to mitigate some of these disparities. Thus, we conducted an analysis of all FESS cases at a national center. Utilizing the Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) ≥ 3 as a frailty surrogate we separated patients in two groups for patients with and without comorbidities. Patients with (CCI) ≥ 3 exhibited a higher age (p < 0.001), and number of comorbidities (p < 0.001) than the control group. Thereafter, a propensity score matching was done to adjust for potential confounders. Postoperative safety measures in emergency department utilization, and clinic readmission did not significantly differ between the groups. Furthermore, patients of both groups reported similar postoperative pain improvements. However, patients with a (CCI) ≥ 3 were treated as inpatients more often (p < 0.001), had a higher length of stay (p < 0.001) and a smaller functional improvement after at a chronic postoperative timepoint (p = 0.045). The results underline safety and efficacy of FESS in patients with comorbidities. Additionally, they provide guidance for preoperative patient counselling and resource utilization when applying FESS in frail patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical treatment for symptomatic thoracic disc herniations (TDH) involves invasive open surgical approaches with relatively high complication rates and prolonged hospital stays. Although advantages of full endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) are well-established in lumbar disc herniations, data are limited for the endoscopic treatment of TDH despite potential benefits regarding surgical invasiveness. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of potential benefits of FESS for the treatment of TDH. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were systematically searched for the term “thoracic disc herniation” up to March 2023 and study quality appraised with a subsequent meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were perioperative complications, need for instrumentation, and reoperations. Simultaneously, we performed a multicenter retrospective evaluation of outcomes in patients undergoing full endoscopic thoracic discectomy. RESULTS: We identified 3190 patients from 108 studies for the traditional thoracic discectomy meta-analysis. Pooled incidence rates of complications were 25% (95% CI 0.22-0.29) for perioperative complications and 7% (95% CI 0.05-0.09) for reoperation. In this cohort, 37% (95% CI 0.26-0.49) of patients underwent instrumentation. The pooled mean for estimated blood loss for traditional approaches was 570 mL (95% CI 477.3-664.1) and 7.0 days (95% CI 5.91-8.14) for length of stay. For FESS, 41 patients from multiple institutions were retrospectively reviewed, perioperative complications were reported in 4 patients (9.7%), 4 (9.7%) required revision surgery, and 6 (14.6%) required instrumentation. Median blood loss was 5 mL (IQR 5-10), and length of stay was 0.43 days (IQR 0-1.23). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that full endoscopic thoracic discectomy is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic TDH. When compared with open surgical approaches, FESS dramatically diminishes invasiveness, the rate of complications, and need for prolonged hospitalizations. Full endoscopic spine surgery has the capacity to alter the standard of care for TDH treatment toward an elective outpatient surgery.

OBJECTIVE: An increasing number of obese patients undergoing elective spine surgery has been reported. Obesity has been associated with a substantially higher number of surgical site infections and a longer surgery duration. However, there is a lack of research investigating the intersection of obesity and full endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) in terms of functional outcomes and complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate wound site infections and functional outcomes following FESS in obese patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar FESS at the participating institutions from March 2020 to March 2023 for degenerative pathologies were included in the analysis. Patients were divided into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m²) and nonobese (BMI 18–30 kg/m²) groups. Data were collected prospectively using an approved smartphone application for 3 months postsurgery. Parameters included demographics, surgical details, a virtual wound checkup, the visual analog scale for back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as a functional outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were included in the analysis, with 53 patients in the obese group and 65 in the nonobese group. Group homogeneity was satisfactory regarding patient age (obese vs nonobese: 55.5 ± 14.7 years vs 59.1 ± 17.1 years, p = 0.25) and sex (p = 0.85). No surgical site infection requiring operative revision was reported for either group. No significant differences for blood loss per level (obese vs nonobese: 9.7 ± 16.8 ml vs 8.0 ± 13.3 ml, p = 0.49) or duration of surgery per level (obese vs nonobese: 91.2 ± 57.7 minutes vs 76.8 ± 39.2 minutes, p = 0.44) were reported between groups. Obese patients showed significantly faster improvement regarding ODI (−3.0 ± 9.8 vs 0.7 ± 11.3, p = 0.01) and leg pain (−4.4 ± 3.2 vs −2.9 ± 3.7, p = 0.03) 7 days postsurgery. This effect was no longer significant 90 days postsurgery for either ODI (obese vs nonobese: −11.4 ± 11.4 vs −9.1 ± 9.6, p = 0.24) or leg pain (obese vs nonobese: −4.3 ± 3.9 vs −3.5 ± 3.8, p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the effectiveness and safety of lumbar FESS in obese patients. Unlike with open spine surgery, obese patients did not experience significant increases in surgery time or postoperative complications. Interestingly, obese patients demonstrated faster early recovery, as indicated by significantly greater improvements in ODI and leg pain at 7 days after surgery. However, there was no difference in improvement between the groups at 90 days after surgery.

Purpose: After major COVID-19 lockdown measures were suspended in 2021, E-scooter mobility regrew rapidly. In the meantime, multiple studies were published on the potential risks for e-scooter drivers and the necessity for wearing protective equipment. But did the drivers learn their lessons? Methods: We observed data of E-scooter-related accidents admitted to the emergency department of a level 1 German trauma center in the year 2021 and compared the data with our previous report (July 2019-July 2020). Results: N = 97 E-scooter-related accidents were included, marking a 50% increase when compared to the previous observation. Most patients were young adults (28.18 ± 1.13 years) with a notable shift towards a male population (25 vs. 63, p = 0.007). While the injury pattern remained unchanged, injury severity, reflected by a significant increase in shock room treatments (p = 0.005), hospital admissions (p = 0.45), and ICU admissions (p = 0.028), increased. Lastly, we report a higher injury severity of patients driving under the influence of alcohol, expressed by significant differences in hospital admissions, shock room treatments, ICU admissions, intracerebral bleeding (p < 0.0001), and injuries requiring surgery (p = 0.0017). Conclusion: The increase in injury severity and especially the substantial number of accidents due to driving under the influence of alcohol, are alarming for both trauma- and neurosurgeons. As the controversy surrounding the general use of E-scooters will continue, we urge representatives to intensify their efforts regarding prevention campaigns focusing on the potential dangers of E-scooters, especially when driving under the influence of alcohol.

OBJECTIVE: Questions regarding anticipated pain improvement and functional recovery postsurgery are frequently posed in preoperative consultations. However, a lack of data characterizing outcomes for the first postoperative days only allows for anecdotal answers. Hence, the assessment of ultra-early patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is essential for patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to elucidate this research gap by assessing and characterizing PROMs for the first days after full endoscopic spine surgery (FESS). METHODS: This multicenter study included patients undergoing lumbar FESS from March 2021 to July 2023. After informed consent was provided, data were collected prospectively through a smartphone application. Patients underwent either discectomy or decompression. Analyzed parameters included demographics, surgical details, visual analog scale scores for both back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Data were acquired daily for the 1st postoperative week, as well as after 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were included, of whom 102 underwent FESS discectomy and 80 underwent FESS decompression. Significant differences between the discectomy and decompression groups were found for age (mean 50.45 ± 15.28 years and 63.85 ± 13.25 years, p < 0.001; respectively), sex (p = 0.007), and surgery duration (73.45 ± 45.23 minutes vs 98.05 ± 46.47 minutes, p < 0.001; respectively). Patients in both groups reported a significant amelioration of leg pain on the 1st postoperative day (discectomy group VAS score: 6.2 ± 2.6 vs 2.4 ± 2.9, p < 0.001; decompression group: 5.3 ± 2.8 vs 1.9 ± 2.2, p < 0.001) and of back pain within the 1st postoperative week (discectomy group VAS score: 5.5 ± 2.8 vs 2.8 ± 2.2, p < 0.001; decompression group: 5.2 ± 2.7 vs 3.1 ± 2.4, p < 0.001). ODI score improvement was most pronounced at the 3-month time point (discectomy group: 21.7 ± 9.1 vs 9.3 ± 9.1, p < 0.001; decompression group: 19.3 ± 7.8 vs 9.9 ± 8.3, p < 0.001). For both groups, pain improvement within the 1st week after surgery was highly predictive of later benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-early PROMs reveal an immediate pain improvement after FESS. While the benefits in pain reduction plateaued within the 1st postoperative week for both groups, functional improvements developed over a more extended period. These results illustrate a biphasic rehabilitation process wherein initial pain alleviation transitions into functional improvement over time.

Introduction: The rising number of outpatient spine surgeries creates challenges in postoperative management and care. Telemedicine offers a unique opportunity to reduce in-person clinic visits and improve resource allocation. We aimed to investigate the impact of a validated smartphone application on clinic utilization following full-endoscopic spine surgery (FESS). Methods: We evaluated patients undergoing FESS from 2020 to 2022 and a pre-COVID control group (CG) from 2018 to 2019. Subsequently, we divided the patients into three groups: one using the application (intervention group, IG), and two CGs (2020–2022, CG and 2018–2019, historical control group (HG)). We analyzed the post-surgical hospitalization rate, all follow-ups, and virtually transmitted patient-reported outcomes. Results: A total of 115 patients were included in the IG. The CG consisted of 137 and the HG of 202 patients (CG and HG in the following). Group homogeneity was satisfactory regarding patient age ( p  = 0.9), sex ( p   = 0.88), and body mass index ( p   = 0.99). IG patients were treated as outpatients significantly more often [14.78% vs. 29.2% vs. 37.62% ( p   < 0.001)]. Additionally, IG patients showed significantly higher follow-up compliance [74.78% vs. 40.14% vs. 37.13% ( p   < 0.001)] 3-month post-surgery and fewer in-patient follow-up visits [(0.5 ± 0.85 vs. 1.32 ± 0.8 vs. 1.33 ± 0.7 ( p   < 0.001)]. Conclusion: Our results underline the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of remote patient monitoring following FESS. Furthermore, they highlight the opportunity to implement a virtual wound checkup, and to substantially improve postoperative follow-up compliance via telemedicine.