Literature DB >> 26629194

Treatment results in different surgical approaches for intraspinal tumor in 51 patients.

Shaohui Zong1, Yunle Wu2, Yong Tao3, Xiaoming Chen2, Ye Fang2, Li Du2, Jingmin Zhao4, Gaofeng Zeng5.   

Abstract

To investigate the treatment results for the different surgical approaches for intraspinal tumor in lumbar spine. We retrospectively reviewed data for 51 patients with intraspinal tumors who were treated with surgery. We used the navigation system (group A) or traditional method (group B) to guide the surgery. Through the comparison of group A (22 patients) and group B (29 patients), we found some differences between the two groups, such as their total resection rate, the placement of pedicle screws, the mean operating time, intraoperative operation loss, JOA scores. In group A, the total resection rate was 95.45%. One hundred and ten pedicle screws were implanted, and no screw injured the nerve tissues or blood vessel; the placement of 94.55% of the pedicle screws was excellent. In group B, the total resection rate was 86.28%. A total of 134 pedicle screws were implanted, including five screws that injured nerve tissues or blood vessels; the placement of 87.31% of the pedicle screws was excellent. The postoperative symptoms were significantly improved in the two groups, and there were no deaths. The operation times were significantly lower in group A than in group B (P < 0.05), and the intraoperative operation loss was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P < 0.01). Additionally, the postoperative improvement in percent evaluated by Japan Orthopaedic Association (JOA) back pain evaluation questionnaire was significantly higher in group A than in group B (P < 0.05). The navigation system can provide crucial help in the treatment of spinal operation as an assisted method, which has great potential to improve the accuracy and safety.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Navigation system; intraspinal tumor; lumbar spine; pedicle screw; surgical treatment; total resection rate

Year:  2015        PMID: 26629194      PMCID: PMC4659082     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med        ISSN: 1940-5901


  18 in total

Review 1.  Image-guided spinal navigation.

Authors:  I H Kalfas
Journal:  Clin Neurosurg       Date:  2000

2.  [Clinical applications of computer-assisted navigation technique in spinal pedicle screw internal fixation].

Authors:  Shu-gang Li; Lin Sheng; Hong Zhao; Jian-guo Zhang; Ji-liang Zhai; Yong Zhu
Journal:  Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2009-03-24

3.  Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion: a prospective CT study in 30 low back patients.

Authors:  T Laine; K Mäkitalo; D Schlenzka; K Tallroth; M Poussa; A Alho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  [Computer assisted pedicle screw installation. Our first 3 cases].

Authors:  L P Amiot; H Labelle; J A De Guise; C Bellefleur; C H Rivard
Journal:  Ann Chir       Date:  1996

5.  Computer-assisted pedicle screw fixation. A feasibility study.

Authors:  L P Amiot; H Labelle; J A DeGuise; M Sati; P Brodeur; C H Rivard
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Spinal pedicle fixation. Confirmation of an image-based technique for screw placement.

Authors:  J C Steinmann; H N Herkowitz; H el-Kommos; D P Wesolowski
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Clinical characteristics of spinal nerve sheath tumors: analysis of 149 cases.

Authors:  Takahiro Jinnai; Tsunemaro Koyama
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 8.  Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gelalis; Nikolaos K Paschos; Emilios E Pakos; Angelos N Politis; Christina M Arnaoutoglou; Athanasios C Karageorgos; Avraam Ploumis; Theodoros A Xenakis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  _ 2009 review and revisions of the international standards for the neurological classification of spinal cord injury.

Authors:  William P Waring; Fin Biering-Sorensen; Stephen Burns; William Donovan; Daniel Graves; Amitabh Jha; Linda Jones; Steven Kirshblum; Ralph Marino; M J Mulcahey; Ronald Reeves; William M Scelza; Mary Schmidt-Read; Adam Stein
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.985

10.  Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery.

Authors:  Choll W Kim; Yu-Po Lee; William Taylor; Ahmet Oygar; Woo Kyung Kim
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Image-guidance technology and the surgical resection of spinal column tumors.

Authors:  Bhargav Desai; Jonathan Hobbs; Grant Hartung; Guoren Xu; Ziya L Gokaslan; Andreas Linninger; Ankit I Mehta
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 2.  Robotics in spinal surgery.

Authors:  Matthew S Galetta; Joseph D Leider; Srikanth N Divi; Dhruv K C Goyal; Gregory D Schroeder
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

3.  Spinal dual-energy computed tomography: improved visualisation of spinal tumorous growth with a noise-optimised advanced monoenergetic post-processing algorithm.

Authors:  Mareen Kraus; Jakob Weiss; Nadja Selo; Thomas Flohr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Fabian Bamberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ahmed E Othman
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 2.804

4.  Experience of operative treatment in 27 patients with intraspinal neurilemmoma.

Authors:  Haibo Li; Yiping Weng; Dong Zhou; Luming Nong; Nanwei Xu
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 2.967

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.