The Journal of Spinal Surgery

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  6 (2019)
Volume  5 (2018)
Volume  4 (2017)
Volume  3 (2016)
Volume  2 (2015)
Volume  1 (2014)
Related articles

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2019 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

A Study Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery for One- or Two-level Thoracolumbar Intradural Extramedullary (IDEM) Spine Tumors

Sreenath Kuniyil, Bijukrishnan Rajagopalawarrier, Vijayan Peettakkandy

Keywords : Intradural extramedullary, Minimally invasive, Spine tumors

Citation Information : Kuniyil S, Rajagopalawarrier B, Peettakkandy V. A Study Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery for One- or Two-level Thoracolumbar Intradural Extramedullary (IDEM) Spine Tumors. J Spinal Surg 2019; 6 (2):53-59.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10039-1216

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: The era of modern minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery begins in the early 1990s with the report of the first case of tubular discectomy. Later, intradural tumor excision was reported in 2006. But most of us are still reluctant in accepting this new corridor due to lack of studies from India. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare various aspects of minimally invasive resection of one- or two-spinal level thoracolumbar intradural extramedullary (IDEM) tumors with conventional open surgery. Materials and methods: This study was conducted in patients admitted with a diagnosis of IDEM spinal tumor during the period of January 2016 January 2019. We compared 19 cases of one- or two-spinal level thoracolumbar IDEM tumors operated through MIS with 19 similar cases operated through open surgery. Results: The mean intraoperative blood loss was 115 mL in the MIS group and 530 mL in the open group and the duration of surgery was 229.74 minutes for the MIS group and 230.26 minutes for the open group. The mean C arm exposure was 6.04 in the MIS group and 2.63 in the open group. Ten cases in the MIS group and eight cases in the open group were operated in one spinal level and 9 in the MIS group and 11 in the open group were operated in two spinal levels. One patient in both groups developed cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and one patient in the MIS group and two patients in the open group had a postoperative wound infection. The mean postoperative pain score was 2 in the MIS group and 3.58 in the open group (assessed by the visual analog scale). Sensory and motor symptoms improved in all cases in both groups. The mean hospital stay was 5.16 days in the MIS group and 8.42 days in the open group. The mean size of incision was 2.73 in the MIS group and 8.18 in the open group. The patient satisfaction index (PSI 1–4) in terms of overall satisfaction was 1 (68.4%) and 2 (31.6%) in the MIS group and 1 (47.4%), 2 (31.6%), and 3 (21.1%) in the open group. Conclusion: We conclude that MIS procedures are a safe and better alternative for one- or two-level thoracolumbar IDEM spinal tumors but its usefulness in tumors with more than two-level needs further studies.

PDF Share
  1. Faubert C, Caspar W. Lumbar percutaneous discectomy. Initial experience in 28 cases. Neuroradiology 1991;33:407–410. DOI: 10.1007/BF00598613.
  2. Snyder AL, O'Toole J, et al. The Technological Development of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. BioMed Research International. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 2014; p. 293582. DOI: 10.1155/2014/293582.
  3. Kerr SM, Tannoury C, et al. The role of minimally invasive surgery in the lumbar spine. Oper Techn Orthop 2007;17:183–189. DOI: 10.1053/j.oto.2007.04.005.
  4. Gandhi RH, German JW. Minimally invasive approach for the treatment of intradural spinal pathology. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35(2):E5. DOI: 10.3171/2013.5.FOCUS13163.
  5. Tredway TL, Santiago P, et al. Minimally invasive resection of intradural-extramedullary spinal neoplasms. Neurosurgery 2006;58(1):52–58.
  6. Bijukrishnan R, Shaji UA, et al. Minimally invasive spine surgery: an alternate corridor for various spinal procedures – Our institute experience. Indian J Neurosci 2018;4(4):197–203.
  7. Kurland LT. The frequency of intracranial and intraspinal neoplasms in the resident population of Rochester, Minnesota. J Neurosurg 1958;15:627–641. DOI: 10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0627.
  8. Stein CL, McCormick PC. Spinal intradural tumors. Wilkins RH, Rengachary SS. Neurosurgery. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996; pp. 1769–1778.
  9. Assaker R. Minimal access spinal technologies: state-of-the-art, indications, and techniques. Joint Bone Spine 2004;71:459–469. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2004.08.006.
  10. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, et al. Maximizing the potential of minimally invasive spine surgery in complex spinal disorders. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E19. DOI: 10.3171/FOC/2008/25/8/E19.
  11. Wang MY, Cummock MD, et al. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive vs open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:694–
  12. DOI: 10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09621.
  13. Wong AP, Lall RR, et al. Comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for intradural-extramedullary spine tumors. Neurosurg Focus 2015;39:E11. DOI: 10.3171/2015.5.FOCUS15129.
  14. Raygor KP, Than KD, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive transspinous and open approaches for thoracolumbar intraduralextramedullary spinal tumors. Neurosurg Focus 2015;39:E12. DOI: 10.3171/2015.5.FOCUS15187.
  15. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, et al. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19:829–835. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004.
  16. Chiou SM, Eggert HR, et al. Microsurgical unilateral approaches for spinal tumour surgery: eight years’ experience in 256 primary operated patients. Acta Neurochir 1989;100:127–133. DOI: 10.1007/BF01403599.
  17. Yasargil MG, Tranmer BI, et al. Unilateral partial hemi-laminectomy for the removal of extra-and intramedullary tumours and AVMs. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 1991;18:113–132.
  18. Sarioglu AC, Hanci M, et al. Unilateral hemilaminectomy for the removal of the spinal space-occupying lesions. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 1997;40(2):74–77. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1053420.
  19. Oktem IS, Akdemir H, et al. Hemilaminectomy for the removal of the spinal lesions. Spinal Cord 2000;38(2):92–96. DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100963.
  20. Pompili A, Caroli F, et al. Unilateral limited laminectomy as the approach of choice for the removal of thoracolumbar neurofibromas. Spine 2004;29(15):1698–1702. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000132311.89236.C2.
  21. Mannion RJ, Nowitzke AM, et al. Safety and efficacy of intradural extramedullary spinal tumor removal using a minimally invasive approach. Neurosurgery 2011;68:208–216.
  22. Zhu YJ, Ying GY, et al. Minimally invasive removal of lumbar intradural extramedullary lesions using the interlaminar approach. Neurosurg Focus 2015;39(2):E10. DOI: 10.3171/2015.5.FOCUS15182.
  23. Haji FA, Cenic A, et al. Minimally invasive approach for the resection of spinal neoplasm. Spine 2011;36:1018–1026. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820019f9.
  24. Dyrda L. How Carm positioning affects radiation exposure in minimally invasive spine surgery: 5 key notes. Available from: http://www.beckersspine.com/mis/item/35384.
  25. Dahlberg D, Halvorsen CM, et al. Minimally invasive microsurgical resection of primary, intradural spinal tumours using a tubular retraction system. Br J Neurosurg 2012;26:472–475. DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2011.644823.
  26. Nzokou A, Weil AG, et al. Minimally invasive removal of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors using a non expandable tubular retractor. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;19:708–715. DOI: 10.3171/2013.9.SPINE121061.
  27. Snyder AL, Clark JC, et al. Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Intradural Extramedullary Lesions of the Thoracic Spine. Barrow Quarterly 2016;26(1):20–25.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.