Postoperative outcomes of subaxial cervical spine metastasis: Comparison among the anterior, posterior, and combined approaches.
Anterior approach
Combined approach
Posterior approach
Postoperative outcomes
Subaxial cervical spine metastasis
Thailand
Journal
Journal of bone oncology
ISSN: 2212-1366
Titre abrégé: J Bone Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101610292
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
05
11
2021
revised:
17
03
2022
accepted:
17
03
2022
entrez:
1
4
2022
pubmed:
2
4
2022
medline:
2
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The incidence of subaxial spinal metastases increases due to longer life expectancy resulting from successful modern cancer treatments. The three most utilized approaches for surgical treatment include the anterior, posterior, and combined approaches. However, despite increasing surgical volume, data on the postoperative complication profiles of different operative approaches for this patient population is scarce. The institutional databases of two large referral centers in Thailand were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with subaxial cervical spine metastasis who underwent cervical surgery during 2005 to 2015 were identified and enrolled. Clinical presentations, baseline characteristics, operative approach, perioperative complications, and postoperative outcomes, including pain, neurological recovery, and survival, were compared among the three surgical approaches. The 70 patients (44 with anterior approach, 14 with posterior approach, 12 with combined approach) were enrolled. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Tomita score, and Revised Tokuhashi score, among the three groups. There were no significant differences among groups for medical complications, surgical complications, neurological recovery, verbal pain score improvement, survival time, or ambulatory status improvement. However, the combined approach did show a significantly higher rate of overall perioperative complications ( Patients in the combined approach group had the highest rates of perioperative complications. However, although the differences were not statistically significant, patients in the combined group tended to have better clinical outcomes after follow-up and the longest survival time.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The incidence of subaxial spinal metastases increases due to longer life expectancy resulting from successful modern cancer treatments. The three most utilized approaches for surgical treatment include the anterior, posterior, and combined approaches. However, despite increasing surgical volume, data on the postoperative complication profiles of different operative approaches for this patient population is scarce.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The institutional databases of two large referral centers in Thailand were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with subaxial cervical spine metastasis who underwent cervical surgery during 2005 to 2015 were identified and enrolled. Clinical presentations, baseline characteristics, operative approach, perioperative complications, and postoperative outcomes, including pain, neurological recovery, and survival, were compared among the three surgical approaches.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The 70 patients (44 with anterior approach, 14 with posterior approach, 12 with combined approach) were enrolled. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Tomita score, and Revised Tokuhashi score, among the three groups. There were no significant differences among groups for medical complications, surgical complications, neurological recovery, verbal pain score improvement, survival time, or ambulatory status improvement. However, the combined approach did show a significantly higher rate of overall perioperative complications (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Patients in the combined approach group had the highest rates of perioperative complications. However, although the differences were not statistically significant, patients in the combined group tended to have better clinical outcomes after follow-up and the longest survival time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35360043
doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2022.100424
pii: S2212-1374(22)00014-8
pmc: PMC8960946
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100424Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jul 15;37(16):E969-77
pubmed: 22343276
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2011 May;58(5):279-82
pubmed: 21688506
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Dec 1;42(5):1127-32
pubmed: 9869239
Chir Organi Mov. 1998 Jan-Jun;83(1-2):127-37
pubmed: 9718821
Swiss Surg. 2003;9(2):55-62
pubmed: 12723284
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2186-91
pubmed: 16205345
Eur Spine J. 1994;3(2):76-83
pubmed: 7874554
Orthopedics. 2010 Feb;33(2):87-92
pubmed: 20192145
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Oct;17(10 Suppl):S407-12
pubmed: 1440035
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Oct;17(10):1148-53
pubmed: 1279815
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 May;14(5):612-8
pubmed: 21375384
Singapore Med J. 2014 Nov;55(11):569-73
pubmed: 25631966
World Neurosurg. 2019 Feb;122:e783-e789
pubmed: 30391608
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2003 Oct;145(10):873-80; discussion 880-1
pubmed: 14577009
Ann Oncol. 2011 Apr;22(4):782-786
pubmed: 20966180
Orthop Clin North Am. 2009 Jan;40(1):75-92, vi-vii
pubmed: 19064057
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2010 May 4;90(17):1200-3
pubmed: 20646569
Paraplegia. 1969 Nov;7(3):179-92
pubmed: 5360915
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Feb 1;26(3):298-306
pubmed: 11224867
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Mar;469(3):708-14
pubmed: 20945121
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Oct 15;34(22 Suppl):S108-17
pubmed: 19829270