Ao Leng, Qi Wang, Jiacheng Li, Yu Long, Song Shi, Lingzhi Meng, Mingming Guo, Hailong Yu, Liangbi Xiang
{"title":"胸椎和腰椎肿瘤全椎体切除术后用于前路重建的单钛网笼与双钛网笼的比较","authors":"Ao Leng, Qi Wang, Jiacheng Li, Yu Long, Song Shi, Lingzhi Meng, Mingming Guo, Hailong Yu, Liangbi Xiang","doi":"10.14245/ns.2448052.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.</p>","PeriodicalId":19269,"journal":{"name":"Neurospine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11224740/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Single or Double Titanium Mesh Cage for Anterior Reconstruction After Total En Bloc Spondylectomy for Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Tumors.\",\"authors\":\"Ao Leng, Qi Wang, Jiacheng Li, Yu Long, Song Shi, Lingzhi Meng, Mingming Guo, Hailong Yu, Liangbi Xiang\",\"doi\":\"10.14245/ns.2448052.026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurospine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11224740/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurospine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2448052.026\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurospine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2448052.026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Single or Double Titanium Mesh Cage for Anterior Reconstruction After Total En Bloc Spondylectomy for Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Tumors.
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs.
Results: The overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively.
Conclusion: Using 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.