| Literature DB >> 36061059 |
Wei Xu1, Chen Ye1, Dan Zhang1, Peng Wang2, Haifeng Wei1, Xinghai Yang1, Jianru Xiao1.
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective case series. Objective: To describe the technique details and therapeutic outcomes of 3-D printing model-guided en bloc resection of chondrosarcoma (CHS) with huge paravertebral mass via the combined posterior median and Wiltse approach. Summary of background data: Total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) technique is conventionally based on the single posterior approach or combined anterior-posterior approach. However, the single posterior approach imposes a high technical demand on the surgeon due to the narrow field of vision, limited surgical space and the delicate spinal cord, while the combined anterior-posterior approach not only requires greater patient tolerance but is time consuming and runs the risk of more blood loss and injury to the visceral pleura and large blood vessels during surgery. In addition, it is difficult to completely remove the thoracic CHS with paravertebral mass through simple en bloc resection when it involves the aorta, vena cava, costa and lung. Material and methods: Between August 2010 and January 2016, we performed a retrospective study to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of en bloc resection of thoracic spinal CHS with paravertebral mass through the combined posterior median and Wiltse approach. Postoperative recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.Entities:
Keywords: CHS; En bloc; approach; one-stage; prognosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36061059 PMCID: PMC9428343 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.844611
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Recurrent chondrosarcoma in a 39 years old female (case 2): (A–G) the tumor involved T10-T12 with huge paravertebral mass; (H–J) En bloc resection of tumor via the combined posterior median and Wiltse approach; (K) 3-D printed tumor model; (L,M) the overview and radiologic view showed the negative margin of resected tumor. (O,P) the reconstruction strategy.
Figure 2Horizontal section of the surgical procedure: (A) for the opposite of the mass lateral, the rib(s) connected to the involved vertebrae were cut. Blunt dissection was performed around the lateral and anterior aspects of the vertebral body. (B) for the mass lateral, a plane was developed between the multifidus and longissimus muscles until the tumor was encountered. Blunt dissection was performed around the lateral and anterior aspects of the mass. The inferior and superior intervertebral discs and anterior longitudinal ligament was cut with scalpel and osteotome. The tumor was turned over and pulled out from the mass lateral of spinal cord.
Figure 3General view of the surgical procedure: the rib(s) connected to the involved vertebrae were cut. Blunt dissection was performed around the vertebral body and mass. The inferior and superior intervertebral discs and anterior longitudinal ligament was cut. The tumor was turned over and pulled out from the mass lateral of spinal cord.
Clinical data of a series of included patients.
| Patients | Sex | Age | Recurrence/time | Symptoms and Sign | Preoperative FS score | Primary Locatio | Admitted Location (T + L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 15 | Y 12 m | P, LOM, mass | D | T3 | L: T2-3 + L2-4 |
| 2 | F | 39 | Y 3 m | P, mass | E | T11 | R: T10-12 + L10-12 |
| 3 | F | 40 | Y 24 m | P, LOM | D | T5 | R: T5 + T5 |
| 4 | M | 37 | N | P, mass | E | / | R: T5-6 + L5-6 |
| 5 | M | 32 | Y 8 m | P, Paralysis | B | T3 | L: T3 + L3 |
| 6 | M | 28 | N | P | E | / | R: T8 + L8 |
| 7 | M | 27 | N | P, Paralysis | B | / | R: T6 + L6-7 |
| 8 | M | 64 | N | P | E | /≡ | L: T3-4 + L3-4 |
| 9 | F | 58 | Y 7 m | P, Paralysis | A | T4≡ | L: T3-4 + L3-5 |
| 10 | M | 28 | Y 12 m | P | E | L10 | L: T9-11 + L9-11 |
| 11 | M | 53 | Y 15 m | P | E | L11 | L: T11 + L11-12 |
| 12 | M | 34 | Y 20 m | P | E | L3-4 | R: T3-4 + L3-4 |
| 13 | M | 37 | Y 11 m | P, LOM | C | T5-6 | L: T5-6 + L5-6 |
| 14 | M | 27 | Y 3 m | P | E | T5-6 | L: T5-6 + L5-6 |
| 15 | F | 36 | N 10 m | P, LOM | C | / | R: T10-11 + L10-11 |
T, Thoracic vertebrae; L, Libs; LOM, limitation of movement.
Surgery and outcomes.
| Patients | Operation time | Nerve roots sacrifice | Blood loss | Dural injury | Plural injury | Thoracic close drainage | Postoperative radiotherapy | Postoperative FS score | Follow up | Outcome(recurrent time) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 420 | T2-4 | 1,600 | Y | Y | Y 14days | Y | D | 21 | AWD 15 |
| 2 | 380 | T10-12 | 2,400 | N | Y | Y 7days | N | E | 25 | N |
| 3 | 140 | T5 | 1,800 | Y | N | N | Y | E | 31 | N |
| 4 | 290 | T5-6 | 3,000 | N | Y | Y 10days | N | E | 32 | N |
| 5 | 360 | T3 | 2,000 | N | N | N | N | C | 31 | N |
| 6 | 200 | T8 | 2,300 | N | N | N | Y | E | 33 | N |
| 7 | 480 | T6 | 3,000 | N | Y | Y 3days | N | D | 53 | N |
| 8 | 280 | T3-4 | 1,200 | N | Y | Y 9days | N | E | 38 | N |
| 9 | 270 | T3-4 | 1,600 | Y | Y | Y 18days | N | A | 20 | DOD(13) |
| 10 | 210 | T9-11 | 2,600 | Y | N | N | Y | E | 85 | N |
| 11 | 145 | T11 | 300 | N | N | N | N | D | 26 | AWD(17) |
| 12 | 240 | T5-6 | 2,500 | N | Y | Y 7days | N | E | 77 | DOD(35) |
| 13 | 340 | T5-6 | 3,000 | N | N | N | Y | E | 44 | AWD(30) |
| 14 | 300 | T3-4 | 1,500 | N | N | N | N | E | 34 | N |
| 15 | 270 | T10-11 | 700 | N | N | N | Y | E | 42 | N |
R, Right; L, Left; B, Bilateral.
Univariate analysis of prognostic factors of spinal chondrosarcoma.
| Factors |
| Recurrence free survival | Overall survival | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (month) | percentage | Median (month) | Percentage | ||||
| Age, <40/≥40 | 11/4 | 37.73 ± 18.29 vs. 24.75 ± 11.73 | 50.0% vs. 72.7% | 0.33 | 43.36 ± 20.67 vs. 28.75 ± 7.63 | 75.0% vs. 90.9% | 0.10 |
| Gender, M/F | 11/4 | 36.64 ± 18.93 vs. 27.75 ± 12.09 | 63.6% vs. 75.0% | 0.92 | 43.09 ± 20.65 vs. 29.50 ± 9.47 | 90.9% vs. 75.0% | 0.10 |
| Preoperative Frankel Score, D-E/A-C | 10/5 | 34.50 ± 19.32 vs. 33.80 ± 14.92 | 70.0% vs. 60.0% | 0.77 | 40.20 ± 22.13 vs. 38.00 ± 12.75 | 90.0% vs. 80.0% | 0.16 |
| Recurrence, yes/no | 10/5 | 31.60 ± 20.41 vs. 39.60 ± 8.50 | 50% vs. 100% | 0.05 | 39.40 ± 23.06 vs. 39.60 ± 8.50 | 80% vs. 100% | 0.50 |
| Involved segment, single/multiple | 5/10 | 33.00 ± 12.88 vs. 34.90 ± 19.94 | 80.0% vs. 60.0% | 0.54 | 34.80 ± 10.50 vs. 41.80 ± 22.29 | 100% vs. 80% | 0.50 |
| Postoperative radiotherapy, yes/no | 6/9 | 39.33 ± 24.01 vs. 30.89 ± 11.81 | 66.7% vs. 66.7% | 0.95 | 42.67 ± 22.33 vs. 37.33 ± 17.61 | 100% vs. 77.8% | 0.20 |
Factors with p values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Figure 4(A) the Kaplan-Meier curves of recurrence free survival between primary and recurrent thoracic spinal chondrosarcoma; (B) the Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival between primary and recurrent thoracic spinal chondrosarcoma.