Management of recurrent aggressive vertebral hemangiomas: a comparative study of piecemeal intralesional spondylectomy and modified total en bloc spondylectomy.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Dongjie Jiang, Zihuan Zhou, Qi Zhang, Shaohui He, Haitao Sun, Xiaopan Cai, Tielong Liu, Xinghai Yang, Haifeng Wei, Jianru Xiao
{"title":"Management of recurrent aggressive vertebral hemangiomas: a comparative study of piecemeal intralesional spondylectomy and modified total en bloc spondylectomy.","authors":"Dongjie Jiang, Zihuan Zhou, Qi Zhang, Shaohui He, Haitao Sun, Xiaopan Cai, Tielong Liu, Xinghai Yang, Haifeng Wei, Jianru Xiao","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-02942-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of recurrent aggressive vertebral hemangiomas (AVHs) with neurological deficits poses a challenge due to their profuse vascularization and propensity for recurrence. The optimal approach to managing recurrence AVHs remains a topic of debate within the academic community.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of patients who experienced recurrent AVH in the thoracic and lumbar spine at our institution from August 2015 to July 2022. A total of 31 patients, underwent treatment with either piecemeal intralesional spondylectomy (PIS) or modified total en bloc spondylectomy (MTES). Clinical documentation and surgical outcomes, including pre- and postoperative neurological function assessed by the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), surgical duration, blood loss, recurrence rate, and complications, were retrospectively presented and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study followed a cohort of 16 males and 15 females with recurrent AVHs in the thoracic or lumbar spine for a period ranging from 12 to 106 months. All patients presented with neurological deficits, with 20 patients undergoing PIS and 11 patients undergoing one-stage MTES. Both treatment modalities resulted in significant reductions in pain-NRS and ASIA scores. The MTES group experienced less intraoperative blood loss compared to the PIS group. During the follow-up period, four patients in the PIS group experienced recurrence. No serious complications or evidence of internal fixation failure were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The modified TES technique presents a comprehensive resection, less blood loss, lower incidence of recurrence, and effective tumor control for recurrent AVHs in thoracic and lumbar spine through post-only approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12135413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02942-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The management of recurrent aggressive vertebral hemangiomas (AVHs) with neurological deficits poses a challenge due to their profuse vascularization and propensity for recurrence. The optimal approach to managing recurrence AVHs remains a topic of debate within the academic community.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of patients who experienced recurrent AVH in the thoracic and lumbar spine at our institution from August 2015 to July 2022. A total of 31 patients, underwent treatment with either piecemeal intralesional spondylectomy (PIS) or modified total en bloc spondylectomy (MTES). Clinical documentation and surgical outcomes, including pre- and postoperative neurological function assessed by the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), surgical duration, blood loss, recurrence rate, and complications, were retrospectively presented and analyzed.

Results: The study followed a cohort of 16 males and 15 females with recurrent AVHs in the thoracic or lumbar spine for a period ranging from 12 to 106 months. All patients presented with neurological deficits, with 20 patients undergoing PIS and 11 patients undergoing one-stage MTES. Both treatment modalities resulted in significant reductions in pain-NRS and ASIA scores. The MTES group experienced less intraoperative blood loss compared to the PIS group. During the follow-up period, four patients in the PIS group experienced recurrence. No serious complications or evidence of internal fixation failure were observed.

Conclusions: The modified TES technique presents a comprehensive resection, less blood loss, lower incidence of recurrence, and effective tumor control for recurrent AVHs in thoracic and lumbar spine through post-only approach.

复发性侵袭性椎体血管瘤的治疗:病灶内局部椎体切除与改良全椎体切除的比较研究。
背景:具有神经功能缺损的复发性侵袭性椎体血管瘤(AVHs)由于其血管增生和复发倾向而面临挑战。管理复发性房颤的最佳方法仍然是学术界争论的话题。方法:回顾性分析我院2015年8月至2022年7月复发性胸腰椎AVH患者队列。共有31例患者接受了病灶内部分椎体切除术(PIS)或改良的整体椎体切除术(MTES)的治疗。回顾性分析临床文献和手术结果,包括美国脊髓损伤协会(ASIA)评分、数字评定量表(NRS)评估的术前和术后神经功能、手术时间、出血量、复发率和并发症。结果:该研究随访了16名男性和15名女性复发性AVHs在胸椎或腰椎的队列,时间从12到106个月不等。所有患者均出现神经功能障碍,其中20例患者接受PIS, 11例患者接受一期MTES。两种治疗方式均显著降低了疼痛- nrs和ASIA评分。与PIS组相比,MTES组术中出血量较少。随访期间,PIS组有4例复发。未见严重并发症或内固定失败的证据。结论:改良TES技术经术后入路治疗胸腰椎复发性AVHs,切除全面,出血量少,复发率低,肿瘤控制效果好。
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
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信