Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes in Separation Surgery vs. Anterior Reconstruction for Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005207
Jantijn J G J Amelink, Robertus J B Pierik, Olivier Q Groot, John H Shin, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, Daniel G Tobert
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes in Separation Surgery vs. Anterior Reconstruction for Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression.","authors":"Jantijn J G J Amelink, Robertus J B Pierik, Olivier Q Groot, John H Shin, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, Daniel G Tobert","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospectively matched case-control study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between separation surgery and corpectomy with anterior reconstruction for patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC).</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>The primary goal of surgery for MESCC is to preserve and improve neurological function. Separation surgery may offer a less invasive alternative that still achieves neurological decompression and restores biomechanical stability, enabling surgeons to forego more invasive surgeries, such as corpectomy with anterior reconstruction. However, there is limited literature comparing these two surgical methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-six patients aged 18 years or older who underwent either separation surgery followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (n=28) or corpectomy with anterior reconstruction (n=28) for MESCC from 2017 to 2022 were included. Outcomes included estimated blood loss, operating time, intraoperative blood transfusion and complications. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous data, and Fisher's exact test for categorical data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients undergoing separation surgery compared with anterior reconstruction experienced less blood loss (median 500 ml [IQR 300-1,000] vs. 925 ml [IQR 500-1,425]; P=0.036) and shorter operating times (median 214 minutes [IQR 164-281] vs. 286 minutes [IQR 220-328]; P=0.028). Intraoperative blood transfusion occurred in seven patients (25%) in the separation surgery group versus 14 patients (50%) in the anterior reconstruction group (P=0.10). There were no significant differences between both groups with regard to duration of hospitalization, complications, postoperative transfusions, reoperations, or survival (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Separation surgery was found to have less blood loss and shorter operating times compared with corpectomy with anterior reconstruction. These findings suggest that separation surgery may be a viable therapeutic alternative for MESCC patients currently undergoing more invasive surgical approaches. Future studies should prospectively compare separation surgery and corpectomy with anterior reconstruction to provide additional evidence on their relative effectiveness in managing local tumor control.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Treatment benefits, Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005207","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospectively matched case-control study.

Objective: To compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between separation surgery and corpectomy with anterior reconstruction for patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC).

Summary of background data: The primary goal of surgery for MESCC is to preserve and improve neurological function. Separation surgery may offer a less invasive alternative that still achieves neurological decompression and restores biomechanical stability, enabling surgeons to forego more invasive surgeries, such as corpectomy with anterior reconstruction. However, there is limited literature comparing these two surgical methods.

Methods: Fifty-six patients aged 18 years or older who underwent either separation surgery followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (n=28) or corpectomy with anterior reconstruction (n=28) for MESCC from 2017 to 2022 were included. Outcomes included estimated blood loss, operating time, intraoperative blood transfusion and complications. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous data, and Fisher's exact test for categorical data.

Results: Patients undergoing separation surgery compared with anterior reconstruction experienced less blood loss (median 500 ml [IQR 300-1,000] vs. 925 ml [IQR 500-1,425]; P=0.036) and shorter operating times (median 214 minutes [IQR 164-281] vs. 286 minutes [IQR 220-328]; P=0.028). Intraoperative blood transfusion occurred in seven patients (25%) in the separation surgery group versus 14 patients (50%) in the anterior reconstruction group (P=0.10). There were no significant differences between both groups with regard to duration of hospitalization, complications, postoperative transfusions, reoperations, or survival (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Separation surgery was found to have less blood loss and shorter operating times compared with corpectomy with anterior reconstruction. These findings suggest that separation surgery may be a viable therapeutic alternative for MESCC patients currently undergoing more invasive surgical approaches. Future studies should prospectively compare separation surgery and corpectomy with anterior reconstruction to provide additional evidence on their relative effectiveness in managing local tumor control.

Level of evidence: Treatment benefits, Level IV.

转移性脊髓外膜压迫症分离手术与前路重建手术疗效比较分析
研究设计回顾性匹配病例对照研究:比较转移性硬膜外脊髓压迫症(MESCC)患者的分离手术和前路重建椎体切除术的术中和术后效果:MESCC 手术的主要目的是保护和改善神经功能。分离手术可能是一种创伤较小的替代方法,但仍能实现神经减压并恢复生物力学稳定性,从而使外科医生能够放弃更具创伤性的手术,如椎体后凸切除加前部重建术。然而,对这两种手术方法进行比较的文献却很有限:纳入了从2017年至2022年因MESCC接受分离手术后立体定向体放射治疗(28例)或带前方重建的椎间盘切除术(28例)的56名18岁或以上的患者。结果包括估计失血量、手术时间、术中输血量和并发症。连续数据采用曼-惠特尼U检验,分类数据采用费雪精确检验:结果:与前路重建相比,接受分离手术的患者失血量更少(中位数500毫升[IQR 300-1,000] vs. 925毫升[IQR 500-1,425]; P=0.036),手术时间更短(中位数214分钟[IQR 164-281] vs. 286分钟[IQR 220-328]; P=0.028)。分离手术组有 7 名患者(25%)术中输血,而前路重建组有 14 名患者(50%)术中输血(P=0.10)。两组患者在住院时间、并发症、术后输血、再次手术或存活率等方面均无明显差异(结论:分离手术比前路重建手术更安全:与前路重建的椎体后凸切除术相比,分离手术的失血量更少,手术时间更短。这些研究结果表明,对于目前正在接受更具创伤性手术方法的MESCC患者来说,分离手术可能是一种可行的替代治疗方法。未来的研究应该对分离手术和带前部重建的椎体后凸切除术进行前瞻性比较,以提供更多证据证明它们在控制局部肿瘤方面的相对有效性:治疗效果,IV级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信