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.
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.