Cargando…

Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surge...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hinojosa-Gonzalez, David Eugenio, Roblesgil-Medrano, Andres, Villarreal-Espinosa, Juan Bernardo, Tellez-Garcia, Eduardo, Bueno-Gutierrez, Luis Carlos, Rodriguez-Barreda, Jose Ramon, Flores-Villalba, Eduardo, Martinez, Hector R., Benvenutti-Regato, Mario, Figueroa-Sanchez, Jose Antonio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9441425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34465015
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0637
_version_ 1784782570891771904
author Hinojosa-Gonzalez, David Eugenio
Roblesgil-Medrano, Andres
Villarreal-Espinosa, Juan Bernardo
Tellez-Garcia, Eduardo
Bueno-Gutierrez, Luis Carlos
Rodriguez-Barreda, Jose Ramon
Flores-Villalba, Eduardo
Martinez, Hector R.
Benvenutti-Regato, Mario
Figueroa-Sanchez, Jose Antonio
author_facet Hinojosa-Gonzalez, David Eugenio
Roblesgil-Medrano, Andres
Villarreal-Espinosa, Juan Bernardo
Tellez-Garcia, Eduardo
Bueno-Gutierrez, Luis Carlos
Rodriguez-Barreda, Jose Ramon
Flores-Villalba, Eduardo
Martinez, Hector R.
Benvenutti-Regato, Mario
Figueroa-Sanchez, Jose Antonio
author_sort Hinojosa-Gonzalez, David Eugenio
collection PubMed
description Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surgery (OS). This study aims to determine which method provides an advantage. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Inventory for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compare MIS with OS in patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were analyzed using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Operative time was similar among groups at −35.23 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], −73.36 to 2.91 minutes; p=0.07). Intraoperative bleeding was lower in MIS at −562.59 mL (95% CI, −776.97 to −348.20 mL; p<0.00001). OS procedures had higher odds of requiring blood transfusions at 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.45; p<0.00001). Both approaches instrumented similar numbers of levels at −0.05 levels (95% CI, −0.75 to 0.66 levels; p=0.89). We observed a decreased need for postoperative bed rest at −1.60 days (95% CI, −2.46 to −0.74 days; p=0.0003), a shorter length of stay at −3.08 days (95% CI, −4.50 to −1.66 days; p=0.001), and decreased odds of complications at 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; p=0.03) in the MIS group. Both approaches revealed similar reintervention rates at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.15 to 2.84; p=0.57), effective rates of reducing metastasis-related pain at −0.74 (95% CI, −2.41 to 0.94; p=0.39), and comparable scores of the Tokuhashi scale at −0.52 (95% CI, −2.08 to 1.05; p=0.41), Frankel scale at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.68; p=1.0), and American Spinal Injury Association Scale at 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.37; p=0.19). MIS appears to provide advantages over OS. Larger and prospective studies should fully detail the role of MIS as a treatment for spine metastasis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9441425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94414252022-09-12 Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Hinojosa-Gonzalez, David Eugenio Roblesgil-Medrano, Andres Villarreal-Espinosa, Juan Bernardo Tellez-Garcia, Eduardo Bueno-Gutierrez, Luis Carlos Rodriguez-Barreda, Jose Ramon Flores-Villalba, Eduardo Martinez, Hector R. Benvenutti-Regato, Mario Figueroa-Sanchez, Jose Antonio Asian Spine J Review Article Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surgery (OS). This study aims to determine which method provides an advantage. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Inventory for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compare MIS with OS in patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were analyzed using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Operative time was similar among groups at −35.23 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], −73.36 to 2.91 minutes; p=0.07). Intraoperative bleeding was lower in MIS at −562.59 mL (95% CI, −776.97 to −348.20 mL; p<0.00001). OS procedures had higher odds of requiring blood transfusions at 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.45; p<0.00001). Both approaches instrumented similar numbers of levels at −0.05 levels (95% CI, −0.75 to 0.66 levels; p=0.89). We observed a decreased need for postoperative bed rest at −1.60 days (95% CI, −2.46 to −0.74 days; p=0.0003), a shorter length of stay at −3.08 days (95% CI, −4.50 to −1.66 days; p=0.001), and decreased odds of complications at 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; p=0.03) in the MIS group. Both approaches revealed similar reintervention rates at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.15 to 2.84; p=0.57), effective rates of reducing metastasis-related pain at −0.74 (95% CI, −2.41 to 0.94; p=0.39), and comparable scores of the Tokuhashi scale at −0.52 (95% CI, −2.08 to 1.05; p=0.41), Frankel scale at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.68; p=1.0), and American Spinal Injury Association Scale at 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.37; p=0.19). MIS appears to provide advantages over OS. Larger and prospective studies should fully detail the role of MIS as a treatment for spine metastasis. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2022-08 2021-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9441425/ /pubmed/34465015 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0637 Text en Copyright © 2022 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Hinojosa-Gonzalez, David Eugenio
Roblesgil-Medrano, Andres
Villarreal-Espinosa, Juan Bernardo
Tellez-Garcia, Eduardo
Bueno-Gutierrez, Luis Carlos
Rodriguez-Barreda, Jose Ramon
Flores-Villalba, Eduardo
Martinez, Hector R.
Benvenutti-Regato, Mario
Figueroa-Sanchez, Jose Antonio
Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort minimally invasive versus open surgery for spinal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9441425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34465015
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0637
work_keys_str_mv AT hinojosagonzalezdavideugenio minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT roblesgilmedranoandres minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT villarrealespinosajuanbernardo minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tellezgarciaeduardo minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT buenogutierrezluiscarlos minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rodriguezbarredajoseramon minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT floresvillalbaeduardo minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT martinezhectorr minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT benvenuttiregatomario minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT figueroasanchezjoseantonio minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforspinalmetastasisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis