SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “surgical excision”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

237 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Comparison of posterior cellular bonegraft options for single-level lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Iliac bone autograft (IBG) is osteoinductive/osteogenic/osteoconductive but requires an additional harvesting procedure with known morbidities. Bone morphogenic protein (BMP) is osteoinductive and effective in obtaining fusion but is used off label for posterior fusion, has multiple side effects, and is expensive. Stem cell bone products, both auto- and allograft are attractive osteoinductive alternatives that avoid morbidity related to the graft donor site and may have a better safety profile than BMP. Morcelized allograft bone is osteoconductive but not osteoinductive or osteogenic. PURPOSE: Evaluate and compare the effectiveness of 6 types of viable or osteoinductive bone graft material in obtaining a solid posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for single level anterior/posterior lumbar spinal fusion. The bone grafts were IBG, BMP, autogenous stem cells (MSC) from concentrated bone marrow aspirate (BMA), allograft MSC from bone marrow, adipose tissue, or amniotic fluid, combined with inert cancellous allograft (Allo). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, single-blinded randomized study of 6 cohorts and inert historical control. PATIENT SAMPLE: Elective anterior-posterior lumbar spinal fusion of 175 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments included pre and postoperative back and leg pain (VAS) scores, pain drawing, disability (ODI) scores, pain medication usage, and 1-year postoperative thin-cut CT scans (read by blinded radiologists). METHODS: Patients who were surgical candidates for a 1-level anterior/posterior lumbar fusion were randomized to 1 of 6 types of posterior bone graft alternatives: IBG, BMP, BMA, allograft MSC derived from bone marrow combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloBone), adipose derived MSC combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloFat), or amnion derived MSC combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloAm). Historical Allo patients served as a negative control group. Each group (n 27) had prospective outcomes and were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Fusion rate and outcomes were compared and referenced to Allo group. RESULTS: All but 5 patients had a solid ASF. The posterior fusion rates were 98% for IBG, 94% for BMP, 85% for BMA, 67% for cAlloBone, 64% for cAlloFat, 62% for cAlloAm, and 50% for Allo. Outcomes were significantly improved for all measures for all groups and there was no difference between groups except cAlloFat had slightly greater improvement in back pain in the 7-12 month follow-up period. BMP was the most expensive graft material; cellular allografts had a high-cost relative to fusion rate. CONCLUSIONS: For single level ASF/PSF, the PSF fusion rate was significantly greater for IBG and BMP followed by BMA. Various allograft MSC bone graft options resulted in lower fusion rates but may be greater than Allo. Outcomes were uniformly improved regardless of the type of graft used or the fusion status of the posterior fusion as long as the interbody fusion was solid. If bone graft cost savings is a consideration for PSF, then IBG has the greatest radiographic value, and Allo the greatest clinical value as long as the anterior interbody fusion is solid.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Arthroscopic Correction of Pincer-Type FAI in the Presence of Acetabular Retroversion Results in Excellent Patient-Reported Outcomes With Low Risk of Reoperation or Conversion to Arthroplasty at Minimum 5 Years.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular retroversion is a distinct morphologic variation that may result in pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The role of arthroscopic management within this cohort is not fully understood. PURPOSE: To assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and survivorship at 5-year follow-up in a series of cases undergoing arthroscopic correction of pincer-type FAI with acetabular retroversion. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A single-center, prospective hip preservation registry was reviewed for all cases undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for symptomatic FAI between January 2014 and July 2020, with documented radiographic assessment of acetabular retroversion (ie, presence or absence of crossover sign, ischial spine sign, and/or posterior wall sign on a standing, standardized anteroposterior radiograph). Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, concomitant pathologies (protrusio, Perthes disease, avascular necrosis), excessive pelvic rotation or tilt on radiographs, and/or no crossover sign. Cases were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: moderate-global retroversion group (study group: crossover sign plus either or both ischial spine sign and posterior wall sign) or control group (crossover sign only). Case-control (1:1) fuzzy matching was performed based on age (±2 years), sex, and Tönnis grade (exact). Clinical outcome evaluation included assessment of PROMs (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], 36-item Short Form [SF36], University of California-Los Angeles Activity Scale [UCLA], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), achievement of Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), satisfaction, rates of revision arthroscopy, and arthroplasty-free survivorship, both preoperatively and 5 years postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v29. RESULTS: A total of 201 cases (120 global, 81 moderate) in the moderate-global retroversion group were matched with 201 control cases. Mean age was 30.6 ± 10.2 years; the sample was 90% male. The rate of revision arthroscopy was similar: n = 11 (6%) in both groups (P = .974). No conversion to periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) occurred in either group. Arthroplasty-free survivorship was 98.2% (retroversion group) and 98.8% (control group) (χ2 = 0.189; df = 1; P = .664). Significant improvements in PROMs from baseline were noted (P < .001 for all, in both groups). In total, 81% (moderate-global retroversion group) and 73% (control group) were satisfied at 5 years (P = .103). No significant difference was seen in PASS achievement rates for any of the PROMs between groups: mHHS, 62.1% versus 65.9% (P = .498); UCLA, 60.0% versus 52.2% (P = .192); SF36, 59.8% versus 64.7% (P = .458); WOMAC, 63.5% versus 67.3% (P = .553), for moderate-global retroversion and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy for moderate and global acetabular retroversion resulted in significant improvement in clinical outcomes, with high satisfaction and arthroplasty-free survivorship at 5 years, consistent with a case-control matched group without acetabular retroversion (focal retroversion, pincer FAI). Arthroscopy alone, without anteverting PAO, was an effective surgical management approach for symptomatic FAI in the presence of acetabular retroversion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n = 209, ACCF n = 240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p < 0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p < 0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p < 0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p < 0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p = 0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans↗