Alexander Spiessberger1, Varun Arvind2, Basil Gruter3, Samuel K Cho2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, 5 East 98th Street, 4th Floor, New York, 10029, USA. aspiessberger@gmx.ch. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, 5 East 98th Street, 4th Floor, New York, 10029, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Kantonsspital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes between seven different approaches for thoracolumbar corpectomy/spondylectomy in the setting of spinal metastasis. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed including articles on corpectomy for thoracolumbar spinal metastasis. Data were extracted and sorted by surgical approach: en bloc spondylectomy (group 1), transpedicular (group 2), costotransversectomy (group 3), mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal (group 4a), lateral extracavitary approach (group 4b), open transthoracic/transretroperitoneal (group 5), and thoracoscopic (group 6). Comparison of demographics, blood loss, directly procedure related complications, operating time, and postoperative improvement of pain. RESULTS: A total of 63 articles were included comprising data of 774 patients with various primary tumor entities. Mean age was 51.8 years, 54% of patients were female, on average 1.46 levels were treated per patient, and mean follow-up was 1.59 years. The following statistically significant findings were observed: Blood loss was lowest for the mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal (917 ml), thoracoscopic (1107 ml) and transthoracic approach (1172 ml) versus the posterior approach groups (1633-2261 ml); directly procedure related complications were lowest for mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal and thoracoscopic approach (0% each) versus 7-15% in the other groups; operating time was lowest in mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal approach (184 min) versus 300-588 min in the other groups. CONCLUSION: Less invasive approaches (mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal and thoracoscopic) not only had superior outcome in terms of blood loss and operating time, but also were shown to be safe techniques in cancer patients with low rates of procedure-related complications. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes between seven different approaches for thoracolumbar corpectomy/spondylectomy in the setting of spinal metastasis. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed including articles on corpectomy for thoracolumbar spinal metastasis. Data were extracted and sorted by surgical approach: en bloc spondylectomy (group 1), transpedicular (group 2), costotransversectomy (group 3), mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal (group 4a), lateral extracavitary approach (group 4b), open transthoracic/transretroperitoneal (group 5), and thoracoscopic (group 6). Comparison of demographics, blood loss, directly procedure related complications, operating time, and postoperative improvement of pain. RESULTS: A total of 63 articles were included comprising data of 774 patients with various primary tumor entities. Mean age was 51.8 years, 54% of patients were female, on average 1.46 levels were treated per patient, and mean follow-up was 1.59 years. The following statistically significant findings were observed: Blood loss was lowest for the mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal (917 ml), thoracoscopic (1107 ml) and transthoracic approach (1172 ml) versus the posterior approach groups (1633-2261 ml); directly procedure related complications were lowest for mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal and thoracoscopic approach (0% each) versus 7-15% in the other groups; operating time was lowest in mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal approach (184 min) versus 300-588 min in the other groups. CONCLUSION: Less invasive approaches (mini-open retropleural/retroperitoneal and thoracoscopic) not only had superior outcome in terms of blood loss and operating time, but also were shown to be safe techniques in cancerpatients with low rates of procedure-related complications. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Ali Dalgic; Ozhan Uckun; H Ibrahim Acar; Onder Okay; Ergun Daglioglu; Fikret Ergungor; Deniz Belen; Ibrahim Tekdemir Journal: Turk Neurosurg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 1.003
Authors: Alessandro D Luzzati; Sambhav P Shah; Fabio S Gagliano; Giuseppe G Perrucchini; Walter Fontanella; Marco Alloisio Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christopher M Holland; David I Bass; Matthew F Gary; Brian M Howard; Daniel Refai Journal: Clin Neurol Neurosurg Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Christoph Wipplinger; Sara Lener; Christoph Orban; Tamara M Wipplinger; Anto Abramovic; Anna Lang; Sebastian Hartmann; Claudius Thomé Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 2.816