• Spine · May 2017

    Comparative Study

    Comparison between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Open Surgery for Patients with Spinal Metastasis: A Prospective Propensity Score-Matched Study.

    • Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt, Mun Keong Kwan, Petra Algenstaedt, Chee Kidd Chiu, Lennart Viezens, Teik Seng Chan, Chee Kean Lee, Jasmin Wellbrock, ChanChris Yin WeiCYWDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery (NOCERAL), Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia., and Christian Schaefer.
    • OrthoCentrum Hamburg, Department of Spine Surgery, ParkklinikManhagen, Hamburg, Germany.
    • Spine. 2017 May 15; 42 (10): 789-797.

    Study DesignProspective propensity score-matched study.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional open surgery for spinal metastasis patients.Summary Of Background DataThere is lack of knowledge on whether MIS is comparable to conventional open surgery in treating spinal metastasis.MethodsPatients with spinal metastasis requiring surgery from January 2008 to December 2010 in two spine centers were recruited. The demographic, preoperative, operative, perioperative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. Thirty MIS patients were matched with 30 open surgery patients using propensity score matching technique with a match tolerance of 0.02 based on the covariate age, tumor type, Tokuhashi score, and Tomita score.ResultsBoth groups had significant improvements in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Karnofsky scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and neurological status postoperatively. However, the difference comparing the MIS and open surgery group was not statistically significant. MIS group had significantly longer instrumented segments (5.5 ± 3.1) compared with open group (3.8 ± 1.7). Open group had significantly longer decompressed segment (1.8 ± 0.8) than MIS group (1.0 ± 1.0). Open group had significantly more blood loss (2062.1 ± 1148.0 mL) compared with MIS group (1156.0 ± 572.3 mL). More patients in the open group (76.7%) needed blood transfusions (with higher average units of blood transfused) compared with MIS group (40.0%). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in MIS group (116.1 ± 63.3 s) compared with open group (69.9 ± 42.6 s). Open group required longer hospitalization (21.1 ± 10.8 days) compared with MIS group (11.0 ± 5.0 days).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that MIS resulted in comparable outcome to open surgery for patients with spinal metastasis but has the advantage of less blood loss, blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay.Level Of Evidence3.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…