Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Evaluation of clinical outcomes, complication rate, feasibility, and applicability of transfacet pedicle-sparing approach in thoracic disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 18, Article number: 516 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complication rate, feasibility, and applicability of transfacet pedicle-sparing approach for treating thoracic disc herniation.

Methods

We searched three databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase for eligible studies until Dec 2022. The quality of studies and their risk of bias were assessed using the methodological index for non‐randomized studies. We evaluated the heterogeneity between studies using the I2 statistic and the P-value for the heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 328 patients described in 11 included articles were published from 2009 to 2022. Pain outcomes using the visual analog scale (VAS score) were reported in four studies. The standardized mean difference was reported as 0.749 (CI 95% 0.555–0.943). The obtained result showed the positive effect of the procedure and the improvement of patients' pain after the surgery. Myelopathy outcomes using the Nurick score were reported in five studies. The standardized mean difference was reported as 0.775 (CI 95% 0.479–1.071). The result showed the positive effect of the procedure. Eight studies assessed postoperative complications and neurological deterioration. The pooled overall complication was 12.4% (32/258) and 3.5% (9/258) neurological worsening.

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrated a positive effect of the transfacet pedicle-sparing approach on the clinical outcomes of patients with thoracic disc herniation surgery. The technique has been shown to be safe and effective for the right patient. The technique is associated with lower rates of complications and a shorter hospital stay compared to other surgical approaches. This information can assist clinicians in making informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate surgical technique for their patients with thoracic disc herniation.

Introduction

Disc herniation in the thoracic area is uncommon and reported to account for 0.25 to 0.75% of all herniated discs [1]. Historically, given the lack of imaging, thoracic herniation diagnosis relied heavily on the clinical history and physical findings [1, 2]. Previous studies have estimated the incidence of symptomatic disc herniation in the general population to be 1 in thousand to 1 in million [1, 3, 4]. In the second half of the twentieth century, the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with thoracic disc herniation significantly improved because of the development of diagnostic imaging and surgical methods. Radiological studies have shown that thoracic disc herniations occur between 11 and 37% of asymptomatic patients [5,6,7,8]. Compared to all herniated discs undergoing surgical procedures, thoracic discectomy accounts for 0.15–4% [9,10,11,12].

Thoracic disc herniation was first described by Middleton and Teacher in 1911 after an autopsy was done on a young male patient who initially presented with back pain and inability to walk straight after lifting a heavy weight [13]. TDH is diagnosed more frequently in males than in females, seen often in their 40–50 s [14], mostly located in the lower thoracic spine [15], most frequently occurring between T8 and T12 [15]. This is due to the apparently decreased rigidness in the lower section of the thoracic spine (cite) [16]. Most common disc protrusions are in central or centrolateral locations [1, 10]. The thoracic spine, calcified herniated discs, and giant disc herniations were reported to account for 22–65% and 15%, respectively [17]. Clinical presentation is non-specific. The axial pain and/or radicular pain is often the first presenting symptom [10]. However, in a long-lasting state, myelopathic symptoms may be seen [13, 18, 19]. Symptoms can often mimic other pathologies arising from other neighboring structures within the thorax and the abdomen which can make diagnosis challenging without the aid of imaging [13, 20].

Management is conservative and non-surgical in patients without neurological abnormality and is reported to have a 75% success rate [21]. Thoracic discectomies are reserved for symptomatic patients with signs of myelopathy or refractory radicular pain [1]. In the literature, there is no consensus on which surgical approach is the gold standard, and furthermore, there is a lack of guideline recommendations. Laminectomy and fusion were historically the first procedures to be undertaken to treat TDHs. However, now contraindicated due to major complications like cord ischemia and increased morbidity and death [3, 16, 22, 23]. Due to the smaller cord-to-canal space ratio in the thoracic spine in comparison with this ratio in the cervical and lumbar spine, the posterior approach is not preferable in the thoracic spine [24, 25]. These early experiences led to the development of new surgical techniques to enhance access to the anterior, lateral, and posterolateral views of the thoracic spine [10, 22, 26,27,28,29,30,31].

Some of the available surgical approaches involve manipulating complex anatomy, resection of the ribs, and violation of the thoracic cavity allowing for potential postoperative respiratory complications and poor outcomes [22, 27, 29, 30]. Several case series have reported positive results utilizing the pedicle-sparing transfacet approach, a posterolateral procedure, initially described by Stillerman et al. as a simpler alternative to the more extensive procedures and report lower postoperative complication rates [10]. The aim of this study was to assess the surgical outcome, complication rate, feasibility, and applicability of transfacet pedicle-sparing approach for treating thoracic disc herniation.

Methods

We conducted the present study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [32]. No approval from the institutional review board of our hospital was required.

Search strategy

Queried databases included EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane. Two authors (PA and MZ) assessed and performed a comprehensive web-based literature search using the following search string (“thoracic disk” OR “disk herniation” OR “diskopathy” AND (“transfacet pedicle sparing” OR “transfacet” OR “pedicle sparing”). No date limitations were applied. Afterward, both authors independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full-text studies according to pre-established criteria. Additionally, we queried the bibliographies of included studies for additional relevant articles. Our search flow chart is outlined in Fig. 1. Any disagreement between the two authors was resolved by consensus. Weighted kappa scores were used to assess agreement between the two researchers [33].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowing diagram of included studies selection process

Full size image

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be included, articles had to (1) evaluate transfacet pedicle sparing approach for treating thoracic disc herniation, (2) report results for adult human subjects (≥ 18 years), (3) report patient outcomes, and (4) articles in English. We excluded animal, cadaver, and biomechanical studies, case reports, commentaries, editorials, and reviews.

Risk of bias assessments and evaluations of validity

Two independent reviewers (PA and MZ) assessed the quality of studies and their risk of bias using the methodological index for non‐randomized studies (MINORS) [33]. We determined the high risk of bias for risk of bias score for non-randomized studies as ≤ 8 (controlled group not present) or ≤ 12 (controlled group present).

Heterogeneity assessments

We assessed the heterogeneity between studies using the I2 statistic and the P-value for the heterogeneity [34]. We considered substantial heterogeneity as ≥ 50% [35].

Data extraction and outcome assessment

The qualifying full-text publications were systematically searched for several variables that included first author, year of publication, number of patients, gender, age, study design, preoperative assessment, and postoperative assessment as shown in Table 1. The study's main outcome was neurologic recovery, and the secondary outcome was pain relief.

Table 1 Characteristics of the eligible studies
Full size table

Data analysis and statistical analysis

For each study, differences in means, sample size, and P value were used to calculate the outcomes (neurological recovery and pain relief). The analysis was performed as 2-tailed. The standardized mean difference was calculated for each study. Heterogeneity was determined using the Cochran Q value and the I2 index. A random effects model was used in cases where heterogeneity was significant, therefore if the I2 value was greater than 50%. A fixed effect model was used if the I2 value was less than 50%.

Results

Eligible studies

A total of 328 patients described in 11 included articles were published from 2009 to 2022 and consisted of five articles reported on 214 cases of retrospective case series and 5 articles reported on 103 cases of prospective observational studies undergoing transfacet pedicle-sparing approach. One other retrospective cohort study of 35 cases compared the outcomes and complications between the anterior transthoracic approach and modified transfacet pedicle-sparing (Table 1).

Patient demographics and characteristics

Four studies reported clinical symptoms and the pooled clinical presentation of these studies was 71% myelopathy, 64% radiculopathy, 42% both myelopathy and radiculopathy, 49% axial back pain, and 51% bladder dysfunction (Table 1). Nine studies reported 332 levels of herniation, of which the most common herniated level was T11-12 20% (66), followed by T7–T8 19% (63) and T10–T11 16% (52) (Table 2). Six studies reported the position of 176 herniated discs, of which 55% (96) were paracentral and 30% (52) were central, 5% (8) lateral, and 3% (5) were both central and lateral herniation. Calcified discs were 18% (31) of the total 176 herniated discs (Table 3). Four studies with a total of 95 patients reported multilevel discs, of which 31 patients had two-level, 4 patients had three-level and 1 patient had four-level disc herniations. Overall, 38% (36/95) of patients had multilevel disc herniations.

Table 2 Studies that reported levels of herniated discs
Full size table
Table 3 Studies that reported the location of herniated discs
Full size table

Neurological and pain outcome

Pain

Pain outcomes using the visual analog scale (VAS score) were reported in four studies in 132 patients undergoing transfacet pedicle-sparing approach for TDH. Due to the homogeneity of the studies (I2 = 10%), the fixed effects model was used for the analysis. Based on the obtained results, the standardized mean difference was reported as 0.749 (CI 95% 0.555–0.943). The obtained result showed the positive effect of the procedure and the improvement of patients' pain after the surgery (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

forest plot of standardized mean difference of VAS scale

Full size image

Myelopathy

Myelopathy outcomes using Nurick score were reported in five studies. These studies examined a total of 199 cases. Random-effects model was used due to the heterogeneity of the studies (I2 = 64.4%). Based on the obtained results, the standardized mean difference was reported as 0.775 (CI 95% 0.479–1.071). The obtained result showed the positive effect of the procedure and improvement of patients' myelopathy after the operation (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

forest plot of standardized mean difference of Nurick grades

Full size image

Complications

Eight studies undergoing a transfacet pedicle-sparing approach assessed postoperative complications and neurological deterioration. There was no mortality or wrong-level surgery reported. The pooled overall complication was 12.4% (32/258) and 3.5% (9/258) neurological worsening as shown in (Table 4). In the current analysis, four studies with a total of 166 patients reported an average hospital stay of 4.6 days [36,37,38,39]. Five studies with 182 patients reported an average blood loss of 580 cc. Follow-up time in these five studies was 13.8 months, and 5 patients were lost to follow-up [36,37,38,39,40].

Table 4 Studies that reported complications
Full size table

Discussion

Historical perspective

Thoracic disc herniation was first described by Middleton and Teacher in 1991 [13], and since that time, management of TDH remains controversial [41]. Furthermore, the vagueness of clinical presentation, the low incidence rate of TDH pathology, the complexity of thoracic spine anatomy, and the availability of multiple surgical approaches make the management of thoracic disc herniation challenging [10]. Therefore, in perioperative decision-making, it is crucial to consider essential factors such as the location and texture of the herniated disc, the patient’s level of functionality, and the surgeon’s level of expertise [41]. Since the abandonment of laminectomy and fusion for the management of TDH due to high mortality, morbidity, and complication rate, many surgical approaches were utilized and improved patients' clinical neurological symptoms [28, 29, 41,42,43,44,45]. Some of these surgical approaches undertake extensive bone resection and tissue dissection which lead to disruption of the thoracic spine anatomy with the potential of high cardiopulmonary complications and axial back pain [27, 28, 46]. To decrease the occurrence of complications, minimally invasive posterolateral approaches, such as transpedicular, trasfacet pedicle-sparing, and endoscopic techniques, have become more popular [10, 41, 47, 48]. An increasing number of studies indicate posterolateral approaches achieves a similar outcome to the anterior transthoracic approach with a shorter hospital stay and lower complication rate [41, 45, 46]. Therefore, our aim is to assess the surgical outcome, complication rate, feasibility, and applicability of transfacet pedicle-sparing approach in patients undergoing thoracic discectomies.

Patient demographics and characteristics

The presenting symptoms and neurological deficits experienced in our pooled studies were similar to those reported in literature undergoing other surgical approaches for thoracic disc herniation. In our study, the mean patient age was 50.19 ± 5.54 years and 51.5% were male and 48.5% were female (Table 1). The most common clinical presentation was myelopathy and radiculopathy. The most herniated disc was below the T6-7 segment (Table 2). Historically multiple level herniation was thought to be rare [49, 50]; however, the revolution of imaging technology not only increased the incidence of TDH, but it also increased the frequency of multiple disc herniation in the thoracic vertebrae [8]. In our analysis, four studies reported a multilevel disc herniation and 38% (36/95) of patients had multilevel disc herniations [36, 37, 39, 51].

According to the literature, the anterior transthoracic approach is typically preferred for central and calcified discs [10, 52]. Furthermore, Stillerman et al. and colleagues proposed transfacet pedicle-sparing approach, which involves the preservation of the lateral facet. While this technique may present limitations in accessing central and calcified thoracic discs, preserving the lateral facet was thought to be critical in maintaining the stability of the thoracic spine and reducing axial back pain [53]. However, in our study, central discs accounted for 30% (52), and 18% (31) were calcified, out of the total 176 herniated discs (Table 3). Notably, the authors in our analysis have modified Stillerman et al. surgical technique by removing the entire facet, which resulted in an improved surgical corridor with diagonal access to the disc space while minimizing dural retraction. Consequently, the authors used instrumentation and segmental fusion to address stability at the thoracic levels [36, 37, 39, 40, 54, 55].

Overall pain and neurological improvement

Aggressive cord manipulation and the extent of bone removal and muscle dissection increase the likelihood of patients suffering from perioperative neurological deterioration and chronic back pain [53]. Crafoord et al. first described the anterior thoracic approach which remains to be the gold standard approach to achieve spinal cord decompression in calcified and giant central disc herniation [56]. However, due to rib resection, extensive muscle dissection, and pleural violation, it is subjected to postoperative cardiopulmonary complications [41, 53, 57]. Transfacet pedicle-sparing approach avoids the need for cord retraction and extensive muscle dissection decreasing the chance of neurological worsening and chronic back pain [41, 45, 46]. In this meta-analysis, both visual analog scale (VAS) and Nurick scores show a positive effect with the improvement of the patient's pain and neurological status. The standardized mean difference for VAS was 0.749 (CI 95% 0.555–0.943) across four studies using the fixed-effects model due to the homogeneity of the studies (I2 = 10%) [36, 37, 54, 58]. Neurological status improved in five studies using the Nurick score with a standardized mean difference of 0.775 (CI 95% 0.479–1.071) via a random-effects model due to heterogeneity (I2 = 64.4%) [36,37,38, 40, 54]. Our study demonstrates that transfacet pedicle-sparing approach is an acceptable technique in thoracic disc herniation.

Overall complications

In the literature, the anterior approach was associated with higher overall postoperative complications [41, 46]. Hurley et al. in a systemic review compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing the anterior versus posterior approach for TDH. He reported that complication rates were 23% (193/842) for the anterior approach compared to 14% (43/314) in the posterior approach group [45]. Furthermore, Yoshihara et al. analysed 25,413 TDH cases from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and reported a complication rate of 26.8% (1529/5698) in the anterior approach compared to the nonanterior approach of 9.6% (1890/19715) [46]. Additionally, Kerezoudis et al. and colleagues investigated national registry surgical outcomes in 388 patients for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches and reported a 27% (12/65) complication rate in the anterior approach [41]. In our study, eight studies reported a complication rate, of which the overall complication was 12.4% (32/258) and 3.5% (9/258) had neurological worsening (Table 4) [36,37,38, 40, 51, 54, 59].

Due to the higher complication rate in the anterior approach, it has been reported that the length of hospital stay (LOS) for the anterior approach was higher (median 6 days) and had significantly higher odds of having a pronged LOS (more than 7 days) compared to laminectomy, lateral and transpedicular approaches [41]. In the current analysis, four studies with a total of 166 patients reported an average hospital stay of 4.6 days [36,37,38,39]. Five studies with 182 patients reported an average blood loss of 580 cc. Follow-up time in these five studies was 13.8 months, and 5 patients were lost to follow-up [36,37,38,39,40]. Our result shows transfacet pedicle-sparing approach has a lower complication rate and length of hospital stay as compared to other surgical approaches that treat thoracic disc herniation.

Segmental fusion and instrumentation

In the literature, the topic of whether to fuse or not after thoracic discectomy is a subject of debate, with proponents contending that fusion supports thoracic spine stability reducing postoperative axial back pain, while others contend that fusion and instrumentation introduce postoperative infections and future reoperation [10, 48]. Since the mechanical interactions between the vertebrae, intervertebral discs, rib cage, and sternum play a significant role in maintaining the thoracic spine stability, fusion is typically not advised for the thoracic spine if there is no pre-existing deformity or kyphosis unless there are giant calcified discs or multilevel discectomies [60]. In the anterior transthoracic approach where extensive bone resection is performed, studies have found an increasing number of fusions when compared to the posterior approach [46]. Furthermore, Quint et al. and colleagues reported 1.8% (3/167) postoperative instability after thoracoscopically treated discectomies, and they believe that fusion might help prevent the instability in the lower thoracic levels where the spine is less stiff and more flexible [48]. Additionally, Stillerman et al. recommend against fusion in transfacet pedicle-sparing approach when the lateral facet is preserved. Similar to existing literature, we found mixed opinions on fusion in our analysis. Four studies fused all the single-level herniations [36, 37, 40, 59], whereas one study performed fusion only when there were 3 consecutive level herniations [51]. 3 studies did not fuse their patients even after performing total facetectomies [38, 39, 54]. More studies with longer follow-up are needed to provide evidence if complete fasciectomy indeed leads to spine instability making fusion a requirement for transfacet pedicle-sparing approach.

Strengths and limitations

The objective of the current study is to provide a comprehensive summary of the clinical outcomes associated with transfacet pedicle-sparing approach in thoracic disc herniations. This study aims to provide valuable insights into the judicious selection of minimally invasive surgical approaches with minimal complication rates for the appropriate patient selection. This study has multiple inherent limitations and biases. Search criteria were restricted to English articles published in the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. The meta-analysis is based on retrospective case series, which may have selection biases and may not represent the overall population. Furthermore, incomplete data collection and unrecorded important variables may lead to potential confounding factors that can affect the results. Apart from assessing motor scores, Nurick levels, ASIA scores, and VAS scores, no formal outcome instruments were used which can potentially introduce operator error depending on the surgeon's training level. Additionally, the absence of a control group makes it difficult to determine the actual impact of the intervention as there may be other factors responsible for the observed outcomes. Although this analysis comes from retrospective case series, the patients' symptomatic improvement without any concomitant morbidity confirms the procedure's efficacy and safety. Future studies should concentrate on the long-term follow-up of patients who underwent a transfacet approach for thoracic discectomy, specifically regarding late collapse, mechanical back pain, and fusion revision. Therefore, while our meta-analysis can provide valuable insights into clinical practice, it is important to acknowledge its limitations and interpret the findings with caution.

Conclusion

This systemic review and meta-analysis evaluated pre-operative and post-operative variables reported in the literature by studies that performed transfacet pedicle-sparing approach to treat thoracic disc herniation. Of the variables that were assessed VAS and Nurick score were significantly associated with post-operative reduced pain and neurological improvement. The technique is associated with lower rates of complications and a shorter hospital stay compared to other surgical approaches. Our study provides evidence to support the use of the transfacet pedicle-sparing approach in the surgical management of thoracic disc herniation. The technique has been shown to be safe and effective, with several advantages over other surgical approaches for the right patient. This information can assist clinicians in making informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate surgical technique for their patients with thoracic disk herniation.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Arce CA, Dohrmann GJ. Herniated thoracic disks. Neurol Clin. 1985;3(2):383–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ridenour TR, et al. Herniated thoracic disks: treatment and outcome. J Spinal Disord. 1993;6(3):218–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Love JG, Kiefer EJ, Root pain and paraplegia due to protrusions of thoracic intervertebral disks. J Neurosurg, 1950;7(1):62–9, illust.

  4. Carson J, Gumpert J, Jefferson A. Diagnosis and treatment of thoracic intervertebral disc protrusions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1971;34(1):68–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Awwad EE, et al. Asymptomatic versus symptomatic herniated thoracic discs: their frequency and characteristics as detected by computed tomography after myelography. Neurosurgery. 1991;28(2):180–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gille O, et al. Analysis of hard thoracic herniated discs: review of 18 cases operated by thoracoscopy. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(5):537–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams MP, Cherryman GR. Thoracic disk herniation: MR Imaging Radiol, 1988;167(3):874–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wood KB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the thoracic spine. Evaluation of asymptomatic individuals. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1995;77(11):1631–8.

  9. Logue V. Thoracic intervertebral disc prolapse with spinal cord compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1952;15(4):227–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Stillerman CB, et al. Experience in the surgical management of 82 symptomatic herniated thoracic discs and review of the literature. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(4):623–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen C-F, et al. Acute noncontiguous multiple-level thoracic disc herniations with myelopathy: a case report. Spine. 2004;29(8):E157–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Whitmore RG, et al. A patient with thoracic intradural disc herniation. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(12):1730–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Middleton GS, Teacher JH. Injury of the spinal cord due to rupture of an intervertebral disc during muscular effort. Glasgow Med J. 1911;76(1):1–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Arseni C, Nash F. Thoracic intervertebral disc protrusion: a clinical study. J Neurosurg. 1960;17:418–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown CW, et al. The natural history of thoracic disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1992;17(6 Suppl):S97–102.

  16. Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. 1934.

  17. Oppenlander ME, et al. Surgical management and clinical outcomes of multiple-level symptomatic herniated thoracic discs. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(6):774–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cornips EM, Janssen ML, Beuls EA. Thoracic disc herniation and acute myelopathy: clinical presentation, neuroimaging findings, surgical considerations, and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(4):520–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tovi D, Strang RR. Thoracic intervertebral disk protrusions. Acta Chir Scand Suppl, 1960;Suppl 267:1–41.

  20. Papadakos N, et al. Thoracic disc prolapse presenting with abdominal pain: case report and review of the literature. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(5):W4-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Le Roux PD, Haglund MM, Harris AB. Thoracic disc disease: experience with the transpedicular approach in twenty consecutive patients. Neurosurgery. 1993;33(1):58–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perot PL Jr, Munro DD. Transthoracic removal of midline thoracic disc protrusions causing spinal cord compression. J Neurosurg, 1969;31(4):452–8.

  23. Benson MK, Byrnes DP. The clinical syndromes and surgical treatment of thoracic intervertebral disc prolapse. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1975;57(4):471–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Waxenbaum JA, Reddy V, Futterman B. Anatomy, back, thoracic vertebrae, in StatPearls. 2022, StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island (FL).

  25. Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. New Engl J Med. 1934;211(5):210–215.

  26. Sundaresan N, Shah J, Feghali JG. A transsternal approach to the upper thoracic vertebrae. Am J Surg. 1984;148(4):473–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McCormick PC. Retropleural approach to the thoracic and thoracolumbar spine. Neurosurgery. 1995;37(5):908–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hulme A. The surgical approach to thoracic intervertebral disc protrusions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(2):133–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Larson SJ, et al. Lateral extracavitary approach to traumatic lesions of the thoracic and lumbar spine. J Neurosurg. 1976;45(6):628–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Patterson RH Jr, Arbit E. A surgical approach through the pedicle to protruded thoracic discs. J Neurosurg, 1978;48(5):768–72.

  31. Mack MJ, et al. Application of thoracoscopy for diseases of the spine. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;56(3):736–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Slim K, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Higgins JP, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bransford R, et al. Early experience treating thoracic disc herniations using a modified transfacet pedicle-sparing decompression and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12(2):221–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carr DA, et al. Management of thoracic disc herniations via posterior unilateral modified transfacet pedicle-sparing decompression with segmental instrumentation and interbody fusion. Global Spine J. 2017;7(6):506–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kashyap S, et al. Management of single-level thoracic disc herniation through a modified transfacet approach: a review of 86 patients. Surg Neurol Int. 2021;12:338.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ovalioglu TC. Evaluation of surgical characteristics and clinical outcome of 11 patients with thoracic discectomy through transfacet approach. Rom Neurosurg. 2022;36(4):423–9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nishimura Y, et al. Thoracic discectomy by posterior pedicle-sparing, transfacet approach with real-time intraoperative ultrasonography: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(4):568–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kerezoudis P, et al. Anterior versus posterior approaches for thoracic disc herniation: association with postoperative complications. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018;167:17–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lubelski D, et al. Lateral extracavitary, costotransversectomy, and transthoracic thoracotomy approaches to the thoracic spine: review of techniques and complications. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(4):222–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Maiman DJ, et al. Lateral extracavitary approach to the spine for thoracic disc herniation: report of 23 cases. Neurosurgery. 1984;14(2):178–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lidar Z et al. Minimally invasive, extracavitary approach for thoracic disc herniation: technical report and preliminary results. Spine J. 2006;6(2):157–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hurley ET et al. Anterior versus posterior thoracic discectomy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2017;42(24): E1437-e1445.

  46. Yoshihara H, Yoneoka D. Comparison of in-hospital morbidity and mortality rates between anterior and nonanterior approach procedures for thoracic disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2014; 39(12):E728–33.

  47. Nakhla J, et al. Minimally invasive transpedicular approach for the treatment of central calcified thoracic disc disease: a technical note. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(7):1575–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Quint U, et al. Thoracoscopic treatment for single level symptomatic thoracic disc herniation: a prospective followed cohort study in a group of 167 consecutive cases. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(4):637–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Peker S, Akkurt C, Ozcan OE. Multiple thoracic disc herniations. Acta Neurochir. 1990;107(3):167–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Alvarez O, Roque CT, Pampati M. Multilevel thoracic disk herniations: CT and MR studies. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1988;12(4):649–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Arnold PM, Johnson PL, Anderson KK. Surgical management of multiple thoracic disc herniations via a transfacet approach: a report of 15 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(1):76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Vollmer DG, Simmons NE. Transthoracic approaches to thoracic disc herniations. Neurosurg Focus. 2000;9(4): e8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Stillerman CB, et al. The transfacet pedicle-sparing approach for thoracic disc removal: cadaveric morphometric analysis and preliminary clinical experience. J Neurosurg. 1995;83(6):971–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Çelik SE, et al. Microsurgical experience with pedicle-sparing transfacet approach for thoracic disk herniation. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2019;80(3):169–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sivakumaran R, et al. Transfacet and transpedicular posterior approaches to thoracic disc herniations: consecutive case series of 24 patients. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:e921–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Crafoord C, et al. Spinal cord compression caused by a protruded thoracic disc; report of a case treated with antero-lateral fenestration of the disc. Acta Orthop Scand. 1958;28(2):103–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Fessler RG, Sturgill M. Complications of surgery for thoracic disc disease. Surg Neurol. 1998;49(6):609–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bransford RJ, et al. Treating thoracic-disc herniations: Do we always have to go anteriorly? Evid Based Spine Care J. 2010;1(1):21–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Yang X, Liu X, Zheng Y. Surgical treatment of thoracic disc herniations using a modified transfacet approach. Indian J Orthop. 2014;48(2):158–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Yoshihara H. Surgical treatment for thoracic disc herniation: an update. Spine. 2014;39(6): E406–12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the Clinical Research Development Center of Taleghani and Imam Ali Hospital for their wise advice.

Funding

There was no external source of funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

    Shafi Hamid

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Farid Moradi, Seyed Reza Bagheri & Ehsan Alimohammadi

  3. Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Mahsa Zarpoosh & Parsa Amirian

  4. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Hooman Ghasemi

Authors
  1. Shafi Hamid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farid Moradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seyed Reza Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahsa Zarpoosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Parsa Amirian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hooman Ghasemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ehsan Alimohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EA, SRB, and FM conceived and designed the study. PA and MZ developed the search strategy and did the literature search. PA and MZ assessed the quality of study. HG and FM collected the data and performed all analysis. EA and ShH contributed to writing of original manuscript. EA and ShH contributed to writing of original manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Alimohammadi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamid, S., Moradi, F., Bagheri, S.R. et al. Evaluation of clinical outcomes, complication rate, feasibility, and applicability of transfacet pedicle-sparing approach in thoracic disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 18, 516 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04016-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04016-9

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X