Oncological and neurological outcomes after parent rootlet resection in functionally critical spinal schwannomas: a retrospective multicenter comparative study.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Juan Carlos Galeano Zapata, Emanuele Maragno, Marco Gallus, Dorothee Spille, Felix C Stengel, Aziz Yarkin, Victor Rodrigo-Paradells, Vicki M Butenschoen, Vanessa Hubertus, Julia Sophie Onken, Emily von Bronewski, Matthias Demetz, Christian Freyschlag, Ralph T Schär, Thomas Petutschnigg, Maximilian Bschorer, Malte Mohme, Cesare Zoia, Mary Solou, Moritz Lenschow, Cyrus Latifi, Granit Molliqaj, Cristina Romero-López, Milan Lepić, Stanislav Kaprovoy, María L Gandia-Gonzalez, Jiri Bartek, Wilco Peul, Walter Stummer, Martin N Stienen, Michael Schwake
{"title":"Oncological and neurological outcomes after parent rootlet resection in functionally critical spinal schwannomas: a retrospective multicenter comparative study.","authors":"Juan Carlos Galeano Zapata, Emanuele Maragno, Marco Gallus, Dorothee Spille, Felix C Stengel, Aziz Yarkin, Victor Rodrigo-Paradells, Vicki M Butenschoen, Vanessa Hubertus, Julia Sophie Onken, Emily von Bronewski, Matthias Demetz, Christian Freyschlag, Ralph T Schär, Thomas Petutschnigg, Maximilian Bschorer, Malte Mohme, Cesare Zoia, Mary Solou, Moritz Lenschow, Cyrus Latifi, Granit Molliqaj, Cristina Romero-López, Milan Lepić, Stanislav Kaprovoy, María L Gandia-Gonzalez, Jiri Bartek, Wilco Peul, Walter Stummer, Martin N Stienen, Michael Schwake","doi":"10.3171/2026.2.SPINE251487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Resection of spinal schwannomas remains a clinical and technical challenge, particularly in cases involving functionally critical spinal segments where management of the parent nerve rootlet is critical. Although sacrificing the involved rootlet may enable gross-total resection (GTR), it carries a significant risk of postoperative neurological deficits. This study aimed to evaluate the extent of tumor resection and the incidence of new deficits associated with rootlet resection in the cervical and lumbosacral spine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this European multicenter cohort study, the authors retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with spinal schwannomas located between segments C3-T1 (cervical) and L1-S2 (lumbosacral). Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts based on intraoperative management of the parent rootlet: rootlet resection versus rootlet preservation. Primary outcomes were GTR and the incidence of new neurological deficits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 232 spinal schwannomas in the database, 190 (81.9%) were classified as arising in functionally critical segments. The parent rootlet was resected in 94 cases (49.5%) and preserved in 96 (50.5%). The rate of GTR was significantly higher in the rootlet resection cohort (n = 88, 93.6%) than in the rootlet preservation cohort (n = 72, 75.0%; p = 0.008). The OR for incomplete resection in the rootlet resection group was 0.205 (95% CI 0.09-0.56, p < 0.001), with a number needed to treat of 5.4 (95% CI 3.5-12.1) to achieve 1 additional GTR. New neurological deficits occurred in 5 patients (5.3%) after rootlet resection and in 7 patients (7.3%) after preservation (p = 0.767). Perioperative parameters, complications, and functional recovery at 3 months were comparable between the groups, with both cohorts showing significant improvement over baseline. With a mean follow-up of 33.1 ± 28.2 months (± SD), the mean progression-free survival was 121.4 months in the GTR cohort and 89.1 months in the non-GTR cohort (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Parent rootlet resection was associated with higher rates of GTR without an increased risk of new postoperative deficits. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"457-466"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2026.2.SPINE251487","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

Objective: Resection of spinal schwannomas remains a clinical and technical challenge, particularly in cases involving functionally critical spinal segments where management of the parent nerve rootlet is critical. Although sacrificing the involved rootlet may enable gross-total resection (GTR), it carries a significant risk of postoperative neurological deficits. This study aimed to evaluate the extent of tumor resection and the incidence of new deficits associated with rootlet resection in the cervical and lumbosacral spine.

Methods: In this European multicenter cohort study, the authors retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with spinal schwannomas located between segments C3-T1 (cervical) and L1-S2 (lumbosacral). Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts based on intraoperative management of the parent rootlet: rootlet resection versus rootlet preservation. Primary outcomes were GTR and the incidence of new neurological deficits.

Results: Of the 232 spinal schwannomas in the database, 190 (81.9%) were classified as arising in functionally critical segments. The parent rootlet was resected in 94 cases (49.5%) and preserved in 96 (50.5%). The rate of GTR was significantly higher in the rootlet resection cohort (n = 88, 93.6%) than in the rootlet preservation cohort (n = 72, 75.0%; p = 0.008). The OR for incomplete resection in the rootlet resection group was 0.205 (95% CI 0.09-0.56, p < 0.001), with a number needed to treat of 5.4 (95% CI 3.5-12.1) to achieve 1 additional GTR. New neurological deficits occurred in 5 patients (5.3%) after rootlet resection and in 7 patients (7.3%) after preservation (p = 0.767). Perioperative parameters, complications, and functional recovery at 3 months were comparable between the groups, with both cohorts showing significant improvement over baseline. With a mean follow-up of 33.1 ± 28.2 months (± SD), the mean progression-free survival was 121.4 months in the GTR cohort and 89.1 months in the non-GTR cohort (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Parent rootlet resection was associated with higher rates of GTR without an increased risk of new postoperative deficits. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies.

功能危重型脊髓神经鞘瘤根茎切除后的肿瘤和神经学预后:一项回顾性多中心比较研究。
目的:脊髓神经鞘瘤的切除仍然是一个临床和技术上的挑战,特别是在涉及功能关键的脊髓节段的病例中,母神经根的处理至关重要。虽然牺牲受累的神经根可以实现全切除(GTR),但术后神经功能缺损的风险很大。本研究的目的是评估肿瘤切除的范围和颈椎和腰骶椎根状瘤切除相关的新缺损的发生率。方法:在这项欧洲多中心队列研究中,作者回顾性分析了诊断为位于C3-T1(颈椎)和L1-S2(腰骶)节段之间的脊髓神经鞘瘤患者。根据术中对母根的处理将患者分为两组:根切除与根保留。主要结局是GTR和新发神经功能缺损的发生率。结果:在数据库中的232例脊髓神经鞘瘤中,190例(81.9%)被归类为发生在功能关键节段。母根切除94例(49.5%),保留96例(50.5%)。根茎切除组GTR发生率(n = 88, 93.6%)显著高于根茎保留组(n = 72, 75.0%; p = 0.008)。根茎切除组不完全切除的OR为0.205 (95% CI 0.09-0.56, p < 0.001),需要治疗的OR为5.4 (95% CI 3.5-12.1)才能达到1个额外的GTR。神经根切除后5例(5.3%)和保留后7例(7.3%)出现新的神经功能缺损(p = 0.767)。围手术期参数、并发症和3个月的功能恢复在两组之间具有可比性,两组均显示较基线有显著改善。平均随访33.1±28.2个月(±SD), GTR组的平均无进展生存期为121.4个月,非GTR组的平均无进展生存期为89.1个月(p < 0.001)。结论:母根根切除与较高的GTR发生率相关,而不会增加新的术后缺陷的风险。这些发现需要在前瞻性研究中得到证实。
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
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
×
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
小红书