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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |