Mohammed Alshareef1,2, Gibson Klapthor3,2, Ali Alawieh4,2, Stephen Lowe1,2, Bruce Frankel5,6. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 301 CSB, USA. 2. Department of Neurooncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Department of Neurological Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 301 CSB, USA. frankel@musc.edu. 6. Department of Neurooncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. frankel@musc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is a debilitating sequela of cancer that results in pain, disability, and neurologic deficits. Surgical techniques have included open surgical (OS) techniques with anterior and/or posterior decompression and fusion procedures. Further technical evolution has led to minimally invasive spinal (MIS) decompression and fusion. The objective of this study is to compare MIS to OS techniques in the treatment of thoracolumbar MESCC. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed using PubMed database. Inclusion criteria included patients 18 years or older, thoracolumbar MESCC, and surgeries with instrumented fusion. A total of 451 articles met the inclusion criteria and further analysis narrowed them down to 81 articles. Variables collected included blood loss, length of stay, operative time, pre- and postoperative Frankel grade, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 5726 papers were collected, with a total of 81 papers meeting final inclusion criteria: 26 papers with MIS technique and 55 with OS. A total of 2267 patients were evaluated. They were split into three surgical subtypes of MIS and OS: posterior decompression and fusion, partial corpectomy, and complete corpectomy. Overall, MIS had lower operative time, blood loss, and complications compared to OS. A timeline analysis showed reduction of complication rates in MIS surgery between papers published over a 28-year period. CONCLUSION: MESCC carries significant morbidity and mortality. Surgical approaches for palliative treatment should account for this fact. We conclude that MIS techniques offer a viable alternative to traditional OS approaches with lower overall morbidity and complications.
BACKGROUND: Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is a debilitating sequela of cancer that results in pain, disability, and neurologic deficits. Surgical techniques have included open surgical (OS) techniques with anterior and/or posterior decompression and fusion procedures. Further technical evolution has led to minimally invasive spinal (MIS) decompression and fusion. The objective of this study is to compare MIS to OS techniques in the treatment of thoracolumbar MESCC. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed using PubMed database. Inclusion criteria included patients 18 years or older, thoracolumbar MESCC, and surgeries with instrumented fusion. A total of 451 articles met the inclusion criteria and further analysis narrowed them down to 81 articles. Variables collected included blood loss, length of stay, operative time, pre- and postoperative Frankel grade, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 5726 papers were collected, with a total of 81 papers meeting final inclusion criteria: 26 papers with MIS technique and 55 with OS. A total of 2267 patients were evaluated. They were split into three surgical subtypes of MIS and OS: posterior decompression and fusion, partial corpectomy, and complete corpectomy. Overall, MIS had lower operative time, blood loss, and complications compared to OS. A timeline analysis showed reduction of complication rates in MIS surgery between papers published over a 28-year period. CONCLUSION: MESCC carries significant morbidity and mortality. Surgical approaches for palliative treatment should account for this fact. We conclude that MIS techniques offer a viable alternative to traditional OS approaches with lower overall morbidity and complications.
Authors: Roy A Patchell; Phillip A Tibbs; William F Regine; Richard Payne; Stephen Saris; Richard J Kryscio; Mohammed Mohiuddin; Byron Young Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 20-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Naresh Kumar; Rishi Malhotra; Karthikeyan Maharajan; Aye S Zaw; Pang Hung Wu; Milindu C Makandura; Gabriel Ka Po Liu; Joseph Thambiah; Hee-Kit Wong Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Juan S Uribe; Elias Dakwar; Tien V Le; Ginger Christian; Sherrie Serrano; William D Smith Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ann Liu; Eric W Sankey; C Rory Goodwin; Thomas A Kosztowski; Benjamin D Elder; Ali Bydon; Timothy F Witham; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Daniel M Sciubba Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2015-09-11
Authors: Mohammed Abdul Alshareef; Gibson Klapthor; Stephen R Lowe; Jessica Barley; David Cachia; Bruce M Frankel Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2020-12-22