Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract Background Posterior decompression and stabilization plays significant roles in palliative surgery for metastatic spinal tumor. However, the indication for addition of posterior decompression have not been examined. The purpose of this study was to investigate a retrospective cohort of outc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hiroshi Uei, Yasuaki Tokuhashi, Masafumi Maseda, Masahiro Nakahashi, Hirokatsu Sawada, Enshi Nakayama, Hirotoki Soma
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2018-04-01
Series:Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-018-0777-2
id doaj-aef28e3a9d7745699b3ed1efe42a2d6a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-aef28e3a9d7745699b3ed1efe42a2d6a2020-11-24T21:11:53ZengBMCJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research1749-799X2018-04-011311710.1186/s13018-018-0777-2Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort studyHiroshi Uei0Yasuaki Tokuhashi1Masafumi Maseda2Masahiro Nakahashi3Hirokatsu Sawada4Enshi Nakayama5Hirotoki Soma6Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of MedicineDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of MedicineDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of MedicineDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of MedicineDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of MedicineDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of MedicineDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of MedicineAbstract Background Posterior decompression and stabilization plays significant roles in palliative surgery for metastatic spinal tumor. However, the indication for addition of posterior decompression have not been examined. The purpose of this study was to investigate a retrospective cohort of outcomes of metastatic spinal tumor treated with minimally invasive spine stabilization (MISt) with or without posterior decompression. Methods The subjects were 40 patients who underwent MISt using percutaneous pedicle screws for metastatic spinal tumor, including 20 patients treated with stabilization alone (group A) and 20 patients with added posterior decompression (group B). We analyzed baseline characteristics, postoperative survival time, and perioperative factors such as neurological outcomes, Barthel Index, VAS, and rate of discharge to home. Results The mean ages were 70 and 66 years old (P = 0.06), the mean revised Tokuhashi scores were 7.2 and 5.8 (P = 0.1), the mean spinal instability neoplastic scores (SINS) were 10.5 and 9.0 (P = 0.04), and the mean Barthel Index for ADL were 65.5 and 41.0 (P = 0.06) in groups A and B, respectively. The median postoperative survival time did not differ significantly between groups A and B (12.0 vs. 6.0 months, P = 0.09). Patients in group A had a significantly shorter operation time (166 vs. 232 min, P = 0.004) and lower intraoperative blood loss (120 vs. 478 mL, P < 0.001). Postoperative paralysis (P = 0.1), paralysis improvement rate (P = 0.09), postoperative Barthel Index (P = 0.06), and postoperative VAS (P = 0.6) did not differ significantly between the groups. The modified Frankel classification improved from D1 or D2 before surgery to D3 or E after surgery in 4 of 10 cases (40%) in group A and 8 of 8 patients (100%) in group B (P = 0.01). Significantly more patients were discharged to home in group A (P = 0.02), whereas significantly more patients died in the hospital in group B (P = 0.02). Conclusions Patients treated without decompression had a shorter operation time, less blood loss, a higher rate of discharge to home, and lower in-hospital mortality, indicating a procedure with lower invasiveness. MISt without decompression is advantageous for patients with D3 or milder paralysis, but decompression is necessary for patients with D2 or severer paralysis.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-018-0777-2Spinal metastasesPalliative surgeryMinimally invasive spine stabilizationPosterior decompressionTokuhashi score
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hiroshi Uei
Yasuaki Tokuhashi
Masafumi Maseda
Masahiro Nakahashi
Hirokatsu Sawada
Enshi Nakayama
Hirotoki Soma
spellingShingle Hiroshi Uei
Yasuaki Tokuhashi
Masafumi Maseda
Masahiro Nakahashi
Hirokatsu Sawada
Enshi Nakayama
Hirotoki Soma
Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Spinal metastases
Palliative surgery
Minimally invasive spine stabilization
Posterior decompression
Tokuhashi score
author_facet Hiroshi Uei
Yasuaki Tokuhashi
Masafumi Maseda
Masahiro Nakahashi
Hirokatsu Sawada
Enshi Nakayama
Hirotoki Soma
author_sort Hiroshi Uei
title Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
title_short Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
title_full Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
title_sort comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
publisher BMC
series Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
issn 1749-799X
publishDate 2018-04-01
description Abstract Background Posterior decompression and stabilization plays significant roles in palliative surgery for metastatic spinal tumor. However, the indication for addition of posterior decompression have not been examined. The purpose of this study was to investigate a retrospective cohort of outcomes of metastatic spinal tumor treated with minimally invasive spine stabilization (MISt) with or without posterior decompression. Methods The subjects were 40 patients who underwent MISt using percutaneous pedicle screws for metastatic spinal tumor, including 20 patients treated with stabilization alone (group A) and 20 patients with added posterior decompression (group B). We analyzed baseline characteristics, postoperative survival time, and perioperative factors such as neurological outcomes, Barthel Index, VAS, and rate of discharge to home. Results The mean ages were 70 and 66 years old (P = 0.06), the mean revised Tokuhashi scores were 7.2 and 5.8 (P = 0.1), the mean spinal instability neoplastic scores (SINS) were 10.5 and 9.0 (P = 0.04), and the mean Barthel Index for ADL were 65.5 and 41.0 (P = 0.06) in groups A and B, respectively. The median postoperative survival time did not differ significantly between groups A and B (12.0 vs. 6.0 months, P = 0.09). Patients in group A had a significantly shorter operation time (166 vs. 232 min, P = 0.004) and lower intraoperative blood loss (120 vs. 478 mL, P < 0.001). Postoperative paralysis (P = 0.1), paralysis improvement rate (P = 0.09), postoperative Barthel Index (P = 0.06), and postoperative VAS (P = 0.6) did not differ significantly between the groups. The modified Frankel classification improved from D1 or D2 before surgery to D3 or E after surgery in 4 of 10 cases (40%) in group A and 8 of 8 patients (100%) in group B (P = 0.01). Significantly more patients were discharged to home in group A (P = 0.02), whereas significantly more patients died in the hospital in group B (P = 0.02). Conclusions Patients treated without decompression had a shorter operation time, less blood loss, a higher rate of discharge to home, and lower in-hospital mortality, indicating a procedure with lower invasiveness. MISt without decompression is advantageous for patients with D3 or milder paralysis, but decompression is necessary for patients with D2 or severer paralysis.
topic Spinal metastases
Palliative surgery
Minimally invasive spine stabilization
Posterior decompression
Tokuhashi score
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-018-0777-2
work_keys_str_mv AT hiroshiuei comparisonbetweenminimallyinvasivespinestabilizationwithandwithoutposteriordecompressionforthemanagementofspinalmetastasesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT yasuakitokuhashi comparisonbetweenminimallyinvasivespinestabilizationwithandwithoutposteriordecompressionforthemanagementofspinalmetastasesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT masafumimaseda comparisonbetweenminimallyinvasivespinestabilizationwithandwithoutposteriordecompressionforthemanagementofspinalmetastasesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT masahironakahashi comparisonbetweenminimallyinvasivespinestabilizationwithandwithoutposteriordecompressionforthemanagementofspinalmetastasesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT hirokatsusawada comparisonbetweenminimallyinvasivespinestabilizationwithandwithoutposteriordecompressionforthemanagementofspinalmetastasesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT enshinakayama comparisonbetweenminimallyinvasivespinestabilizationwithandwithoutposteriordecompressionforthemanagementofspinalmetastasesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT hirotokisoma comparisonbetweenminimallyinvasivespinestabilizationwithandwithoutposteriordecompressionforthemanagementofspinalmetastasesaretrospectivecohortstudy
_version_ 1716752343978999808