Cargando…
The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) to open posterior stabilization (OPS) in spinal instability patients and minimal access separation surgery (MASS) to open posterior stabilization and decompression (OPSD) in metast...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10556902/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35227126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211049803 |
_version_ | 1785116969766223872 |
---|---|
author | Kumar, Naresh Tan, Jiong H. Thomas, Andrew C. Tan, Joel Y. H. Madhu, Sirisha Shen, Liang Lopez, Keith G. Hey, Dennis H. W. Liu, Gabriel Wong, HeeKit |
author_facet | Kumar, Naresh Tan, Jiong H. Thomas, Andrew C. Tan, Joel Y. H. Madhu, Sirisha Shen, Liang Lopez, Keith G. Hey, Dennis H. W. Liu, Gabriel Wong, HeeKit |
author_sort | Kumar, Naresh |
collection | PubMed |
description | STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) to open posterior stabilization (OPS) in spinal instability patients and minimal access separation surgery (MASS) to open posterior stabilization and decompression (OPSD) in metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) patients. METHODS: We analysed patients who underwent surgery for thoracolumbar metastatic spine disease (MSD) from Jan 2011 to Oct 2017. Patients were divided into minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) and open spine surgery (OSS) groups. Spinal instability patients were treated with PPSF/OPS with pedicle screws. MSCC patients were treated with MASS/OPSD. Outcomes measured included intraoperative blood loss, operative time, duration of hospital stay and ASIA-score improvement. Time to initiate radiotherapy and perioperative surgical/non-surgical complications was recorded. Propensity scoring adjustment analysis was utilised to address heterogenicity of histological tumour subtypes. RESULTS: Of 200 eligible patients, 61 underwent MISS and 139 underwent OSS for MSD. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between MISS and OSS groups. In the MISS group, 28 (45.9%) patients were treated for spinal instability and 33 (54.1%) patients were treated for MSCC. In the OSS group, 15 (10.8%) patients were treated for spinal instability alone and 124 (89.2%) were treated for MSCC. Patients who underwent PPSF had significantly lower blood loss (95 mL vs 564 mL; P < .001) and surgical complication rates(P < .05) with shorter length of stay approaching significance (6 vs 19 days; P = .100) when compared to the OPS group. Patients who underwent MASS had significantly lower blood loss (602 mL vs 1008 mL) and shorter length of stay (10 vs 18 days; P = .098) vs the OPSD group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the benefits of PPSF and MASS over OPS and OPSD for the treatment of MSD with spinal instability and MSCC, respectively. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10556902 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105569022023-10-07 The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease Kumar, Naresh Tan, Jiong H. Thomas, Andrew C. Tan, Joel Y. H. Madhu, Sirisha Shen, Liang Lopez, Keith G. Hey, Dennis H. W. Liu, Gabriel Wong, HeeKit Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) to open posterior stabilization (OPS) in spinal instability patients and minimal access separation surgery (MASS) to open posterior stabilization and decompression (OPSD) in metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) patients. METHODS: We analysed patients who underwent surgery for thoracolumbar metastatic spine disease (MSD) from Jan 2011 to Oct 2017. Patients were divided into minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) and open spine surgery (OSS) groups. Spinal instability patients were treated with PPSF/OPS with pedicle screws. MSCC patients were treated with MASS/OPSD. Outcomes measured included intraoperative blood loss, operative time, duration of hospital stay and ASIA-score improvement. Time to initiate radiotherapy and perioperative surgical/non-surgical complications was recorded. Propensity scoring adjustment analysis was utilised to address heterogenicity of histological tumour subtypes. RESULTS: Of 200 eligible patients, 61 underwent MISS and 139 underwent OSS for MSD. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between MISS and OSS groups. In the MISS group, 28 (45.9%) patients were treated for spinal instability and 33 (54.1%) patients were treated for MSCC. In the OSS group, 15 (10.8%) patients were treated for spinal instability alone and 124 (89.2%) were treated for MSCC. Patients who underwent PPSF had significantly lower blood loss (95 mL vs 564 mL; P < .001) and surgical complication rates(P < .05) with shorter length of stay approaching significance (6 vs 19 days; P = .100) when compared to the OPS group. Patients who underwent MASS had significantly lower blood loss (602 mL vs 1008 mL) and shorter length of stay (10 vs 18 days; P = .098) vs the OPSD group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the benefits of PPSF and MASS over OPS and OPSD for the treatment of MSD with spinal instability and MSCC, respectively. SAGE Publications 2022-02-28 2023-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10556902/ /pubmed/35227126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211049803 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Kumar, Naresh Tan, Jiong H. Thomas, Andrew C. Tan, Joel Y. H. Madhu, Sirisha Shen, Liang Lopez, Keith G. Hey, Dennis H. W. Liu, Gabriel Wong, HeeKit The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease |
title | The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease |
title_full | The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease |
title_fullStr | The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease |
title_full_unstemmed | The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease |
title_short | The Utility of ‘Minimal Access and Separation Surgery’ in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease |
title_sort | utility of ‘minimal access and separation surgery’ in the management of metastatic spine disease |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10556902/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35227126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211049803 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kumarnaresh theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT tanjiongh theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT thomasandrewc theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT tanjoelyh theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT madhusirisha theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT shenliang theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT lopezkeithg theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT heydennishw theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT liugabriel theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT wongheekit theutilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT kumarnaresh utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT tanjiongh utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT thomasandrewc utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT tanjoelyh utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT madhusirisha utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT shenliang utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT lopezkeithg utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT heydennishw utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT liugabriel utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease AT wongheekit utilityofminimalaccessandseparationsurgeryinthemanagementofmetastaticspinedisease |