A comparison of mini-open and open approaches for resection of thoracolumbar intradural spinal tumors

Object Standard approaches to thoracic intradural tumors often involve a large incision and significant tissue destruction. Minimally invasive techniques have been applied successfully for a variety of surgical decompression procedures but have been rarely used for the removal of intradural thoracolumbar tumors. In this paper, the authors compare the clinical outcome of mini-open resection of intradural thoracolumbar tumors with a standard open technique. Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed their series of 18 consecutive mini-open thoracolumbar, intradural, tumor resection cases and compared the outcomes with a profile-matched cohort of 9 cases of open intradural tumor resection. Operative statistics, functional outcome, and complications were compared. Results Tumors were removed successfully using both approaches, except for 1 case in the mini-open cohort in which only biopsy was performed for a diffusely infiltrating tumor (glioblastoma). There was no statistically significant difference in operative duration, American Spinal Injury Association scale score improvement, or back pain visual analog scale score improvement between groups. However, the mini-open group demonstrated a significantly lower estimated blood loss (153 vs 372 ml, respectively) and a significantly shorter length of hospitalization (4.9 vs 8.2 days, respectively). There was 1 complication of pseudomeningocele formation in the mini-open cohort and 1 complication of cerebral infarction in the open cohort. Mean follow-up length was 16 months in the mini-open group compared with 20 months in the open group. Conclusions The mini-open approach allows for adequate treatment of intradural thoracolumbar tumors with comparable outcomes to standard, open approaches. The mini-open approach is associated with less blood loss and a shorter length of stay compared with standard open surgery.

Download Full-text

Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/spi.2008.9.08142 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. 560-565 ◽

Cited By ~ 234

Author(s):

Sanjay S. Dhall ◽

Michael Y. Wang ◽

Praveen V. Mummaneni

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Open Group ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Mean ◽

Mini Open

Object As minimally invasive approaches gain popularity in spine surgery, clinical outcomes and effectiveness of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with traditional open TLIF have yet to be established. The authors retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients who underwent mini–open TLIF with those who underwent open TLIF. Methods Between 2003 and 2006, 42 patients underwent TLIF for degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis; 21 patients underwent mini–open TLIF and 21 patients underwent open TLIF. The mean age in each group was 53 years, and there was no statistically significant difference in age between the groups (p = 0.98). Data were collected perioperatively. In addition, complications, length of stay (LOS), fusion rate, and modified Prolo Scale (mPS) scores were recorded at routine intervals. Results No patient was lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 24 months for the mini-open group and 34 months for the open group. The mean estimated blood loss was 194 ml for the mini-open group and 505 ml for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 3 days for the mini-open group and 5.5 days for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean mPS score improved from 11 to 19 in the mini-open group and from 10 to 18 in the open group; there was no statistically significant difference in mPS score improvement between the groups (p = 0.19). In the mini-open group there were 2 cases of transient L-5 sensory loss, 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision, and 1 case of cage migration that required revision. In the open group there was 1 case of radiculitis as well as 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision. One patient in the mini-open group developed a pseudarthrosis that required reoperation, and all patients in the open group exhibited fusion. Conclusions Mini–open TLIF is a viable alternative to traditional open TLIF with significantly reduced estimated blood loss and LOS. However, the authors found a higher incidence of hardware-associated complications with the mini–open TLIF.

Download Full-text

Posterior thoracic corpectomy with cage reconstruction for metastatic spinal tumors: comparing the mini-open approach to the open approach

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2014.12.spine14543 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 23 (2) ◽

pp. 217-227 ◽

Cited By ~ 46

Author(s):

Darryl Lau ◽

Dean Chou

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Complication Rate ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Operative Time ◽

Spinal Metastases ◽

Open Group ◽

Open Approach ◽

Mini Open

OBJECT Spinal metastases most commonly affect the vertebral bodies of the spinal column, and spinal cord compression is an indication for surgery. Commonly, an open posterior approach is employed to perform a transpedicular costotransversectomy or lateral extracavitary corpectomy. Because of the short life expectancies in patients with metastatic spinal disease, decreasing the morbidity of surgical treatment and recovery time is critical. One potential approach to decreasing morbidity is utilizing minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Although significant advances have been made in MIS of the spine, data supporting the utility of MIS are still emerging. This study compared outcomes of patients who underwent mini-open versus traditional open transpedicular corpectomy for spinal metastases in the thoracic spine. METHODS A consecutive cohort from 2006 to 2013 of 49 adult patients who underwent thoracic transpedicular corpectomies for spinal metastases was retrospectively identified. Patients were categorized into one of 2 groups: open surgery and mini-open surgery. Mini-open transpedicular corpectomy was performed with a midline facial incision over only the corpectomy level of interest and percutaneous instrumentation above and below that level. The open procedure consisted of a traditional posterior transpedicular corpectomy. Chi-square test, 2-tailed t-test, and ANOVA models were employed to compare perioperative and follow-up outcomes between the 2 groups. RESULTS In the analysis, there were 21 patients who had mini-open surgery and 28 patients who had open surgery. The mean age was 57.9 years, and 59.2% were male. The tumor types encountered were lung (18.3%), renal/bladder (16.3%), breast (14.3%), hematological (14.3%), gastrointestinal tract (10.2%), prostate (8.2%), melanoma (4.1%), and other/unknown (14.3%). There were no significant intergroup differences in demographics, comorbidities, neurological status (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] grade), number of corpectomies performed, and number of levels instrumented. The open group had a mean operative time of 413.6 minutes, and the mini-open group had a mean operative time of 452.4 minutes (p = 0.329). Compared with the open group, the mini-open group had significantly less blood loss (917.7 ml vs 1697.3 ml, p = 0.019) and a significantly shorter hospital stay (7.4 days vs 11.4 days, p = 0.001). There was a trend toward a lower perioperative complication rate in the mini-open group (9.5%) compared with the open group (21.4%), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.265). At follow-up, there were no significant differences in ASIA grade (p = 0.342), complication rate after the 30-day postoperative period (p = 0.999), or need for surgical revision (p = 0.803). The open approach had a higher overall infection rate of 17.9% compared with that in the mini-open approach of 9.5%, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.409). CONCLUSIONS The mini-open transpedicular corpectomy is associated with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with open transpedicular corpectomy. The mini-open corpectomy also trended toward lower infection and complication rates, but these did not reach statistical significance.

Download Full-text

Comparison of minimally invasive transspinous and open approaches for thoracolumbar intradural-extramedullary spinal tumors

Neurosurgical FOCUS ◽

10.3171/2015.5.focus15187 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. E12 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Kunal P. Raygor ◽

Khoi D. Than ◽

Dean Chou ◽

Praveen V. Mummaneni

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Tumor Resection ◽

Spinal Tumors ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Extramedullary Tumor ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Asia Score ◽

Intradural Extramedullary ◽

The Mean

OBJECT Spinal tumor resection has historically been performed via open approaches, although minimally invasive approaches have recently been found to be effective in small cohort series. The authors compare surgical characteristics and clinical outcomes of surgery in patients undergoing mini-open and open approaches for intradural-extramedullary tumor resection. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed 65 consecutive intradural-extramedullary tumor resections performed at their institution from 2007 to 2014. Patients with cervical tumors or pathology demonstrating neurofibroma were excluded (n = 14). The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test and Pearson chi-square test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS Fifty-one thoracolumbar intradural-extramedullary tumor resections were included; 25 were performed via the minimally invasive transspinous approach. There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, preoperative American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score, preoperative symptom duration, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class, tumor size, or tumor location. There was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to the duration of the operation or extent of resection, but the mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) cohort (142 vs 320 ml, p < 0.05). In each group, the 2 most common tumor pathologies were schwannoma and meningioma. There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, ASIA score improvement, complication rate, or recurrence rate. The mean duration of follow-up was 2 years for the MIS group and 1.6 years for the open surgery group. CONCLUSIONS This is one of the largest comparisons of minimally invasive and open approaches to the resection of thoracolumbar intradural-extramedullary tumors. With well-matched cohorts, the minimally invasive transspinous approach appears to be as safe and effective as the open technique, with the advantage of significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss.

Download Full-text

Outcomes After Management of Subspine and Femoroacetabular Impingement Using a Direct Anterior Mini-Open Approach

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/23259671211055723 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (12) ◽

pp. 232596712110557

Author(s):

Liu-yang Xu ◽

Kang-ming Chen ◽

Jian-ping Peng ◽

Jun-feng Zhu ◽

Chao Shen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽

Open Group ◽

Harris Hip Score ◽

Decompression Surgery ◽

Open Approach ◽

Meralgia Paresthetica ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Outcome Scores ◽

Mini Open

Background: Subspine impingement (SSI) has been commonly managed with arthroscopic decompression. However, arthroscopic decompression is a demanding technique, as under- or over-resection of the anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) could lead to inferior outcomes. An anterior mini-open approach has also been used in the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and it could provide adequate visualization of the anterior hip joint without a long learning curve. Purpose/Hypothesis: The objective of the current study was to compare the outcomes of SSI patients with FAI who underwent arthroscopic subspine decompression and osteoplasty with a group undergoing subspine decompression and osteoplasty using a modified direct anterior mini-open approach. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in outcomes between the groups. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We reviewed the records of SSI patients who underwent decompression surgery (arthroscopic or mini-open) at our institution from June 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Both groups underwent the same postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Preoperative and 2-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes were compared using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool–33 (iHOT–33), and Hip Outcome Score—Activities of Daily Living (HOS–ADL). Major and minor complications as well as reoperation rates were recorded. Results: Included were 47 patients (49 hips) who underwent subspine decompression using an anterior mini-open approach and 35 patients (35 hips) who underwent arthroscopic subspine decompression. There were no differences in demographic and radiological parameters between the groups, and patients in both groups showed significant improvement in all outcome scores at follow-up. The pre- to postoperative improvement in outcome scores was also similar between groups (mini-open vs arthroscopy: mHHS, 26.30 vs 27.04 [ P = .783]; iHOT–33, 35.76 vs 31.77 [ P = .064]; HOS–ADL, 26.09 vs 22.77 [ P = .146]). In the mini-open group, 10 of the 47 patients had temporary meralgia paresthetica, and fat liquefaction was found in 1 female patient. There were no reoperations in the mini-open group. Conclusion: Subspine decompression using the anterior mini-open approach had similar outcomes to arthroscopic decompression in the management of SSI. The lateral femoral cutaneous nerve should be protected carefully during use of the anterior mini-open approach.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/0003134820934417 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 86 (7) ◽

pp. 782-786 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Salini Hota ◽

Salvatore Parascandola ◽

Richard Amdur ◽

Vincent Obias

Keyword(s):

Ulcerative Colitis ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Postoperative Outcomes ◽

Open Group ◽

Open Approach ◽

Cardiac Events ◽

Improvement Program ◽

Robotic Assisted ◽

Confounding Variables ◽

Significant Difference

Introduction Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory intestinal disorder that can be managed surgically with a proctocolectomy. Minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopic or robotic-assisted surgery are available based on the surgeon’s preference and familiarity. To date, there is a paucity of literature evaluating the safety of these techniques in comparison to the open approach in patients with UC. Methods We surveyed the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database to select patients with the diagnosis of UC who underwent either robotic, laparoscopic, or open proctocolectomy between 2012 and 2017. A total of 2129 patients were included in the study. The 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression models after adjusting for confounding variables. The confounding variables were defined as any preoperative variable that was associated with the type of procedure. Results The 30-day postoperative outcomes reported in the NSQIP database were reviewed for each of the treatment groups (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). The anastomotic leak rate was significantly higher in the open group ( P = .022). The robotic and laparoscopic groups had significantly fewer occurrences of postoperative ileus ( P = .0006) and wound infections ( P < .0001). There were significantly more strokes, cardiac events, and pulmonary events in the open surgical group. Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group ( P < .0001). Reintervention rates were not significantly different among the groups. Conclusions Minimally invasive proctocolectomy has significantly fewer postoperative complications compared with open proctocolectomy for UC. There is no significant difference in the postoperative outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic proctocolectomy.

Download Full-text

Miniopen vs Lateral Approach for Ankle Arthrodesis, Which Approach is Superior in Joint Preparation: A Cadaver Study

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics ◽

10.1177/2473011419s00139 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 2473011419S0013

Author(s):

Karthikeyan Chinnakkannu ◽

Haley McKissack ◽

Gean C. Viner ◽

Jun Kit He ◽

Leonardo V. M. Moraes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surface Area ◽

Ankle Arthrodesis ◽

Lateral Approach ◽

Fixation Method ◽

Open Approach ◽

Ankle Arthritis ◽

Joint Preparation ◽

Significant Difference ◽

In Trans ◽

Mini Open

Category: Ankle, Ankle Arthritis, Arthroscopy, Basic Sciences/Biologics Introduction/Purpose: Ankle arthrodesis is a gold standard for end-stage ankle arthritis after conservative managements fail. It may be done through direct anterior, lateral, arthroscopic or mini open approaches. Joint preparation, apposition of joint surfaces and stable fixation are very important for successful outcomes. Ankle arthrodesis maybe associated with infection, chronic pain and nonunion - of these, nonunion is the most common complication reported. Achieving union is of utmost importance while minimizing complications associated with the procedure. Regardless of approach or fixation method, preparation of articular surface is of paramount importance for successful union and may be limited by the approach used. Our study aims to evaluate the difference between direct lateral and dual mini-open approaches (extended arthroscopic portals) in terms of joint preparation. Methods: We used 10 below knee fresh-frozen cadaver legs for this cadaveric study. Ankle joints of five specimens were prepared through the lateral approach, while the remaining five ankles were prepared using dual mini incisions. After the completion of preparation, all ankles were dissected to open, photographic images of tibial plafond and talar articular were taken. Surface areas of each articular facet and unprepared cartilage of the talus, distal tibia, and distal fibula were measured and analyzed using ImageJ software. Results: Significantly greater amount of total surface area was prepared among specimens using mini-open approach compared to those with trans-fibular approach. The percentage of total articulating surface area prepared (including talus and tibia/fibula), talus, tibia and fibula in trans-fibular approach were 76.9%, 77.7% and 75% respectively. The percentages were 90.9%, 92.9%, and 88.6% in mini-open approach. While the medial gutter was well prepared with mini incision technique (unprepared surface 44 .64% vs 91.08%), lateral gutter was well prepared in trans-fibular technique (88.82vs 82.04 square cm). There is no difference in the amount of unprepared surface of talar dome between the two approaches. When excluding the medial gutter, there was no significant difference between trans-fibular and mini open techniques (83.94 vs 90.85, p=0.1412). Conclusion: Joint preparation using the mini-open approach (extended arthroscopic portal) is equally as efficacious as the transfibular approach for preparation of the tibiotalar joint. When including preparation of the medial gutter, the mini-open approach provides superior joint preparation. This may be advantageous with decreased rate of nonunion and less complications. But many surgeons fuse only tibiotalar surface, considering that, both approaches yield equal amount of joint preparation. But it needs to be confirmed with clinical studies.

Download Full-text

Comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for intradural-extramedullary spine tumors

Neurosurgical FOCUS ◽

10.3171/2015.5.focus15129 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. E11 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Albert P. Wong ◽

Rishi R. Lall ◽

Nader S. Dahdaleh ◽

Cort D. Lawton ◽

Zachary A. Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Operative Time ◽

Open Group ◽

Perioperative Outcomes ◽

Open Approach ◽

Open Resection ◽

Spine Tumors ◽

Intradural Extramedullary

OBJECT Patients with symptomatic intradural-extramedullary (ID-EM) tumors may be successfully treated with resection of the lesion and decompression of associated neural structures. Studies of patients undergoing open resection of these tumors have reported high rates of gross-total resection (GTR) with minimal long-term neurological deficit. Case reports and small case series have suggested that these patients may be successfully treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). These studies have been limited by small patient populations. Moreover, there are no studies directly comparing perioperative outcomes between patients treated with open resection and MIS. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes in patients with ID-EM tumors treated using open resection or MIS. METHODS A retrospective review was performed using data collected from 45 consecutive patients treated by open resection or MIS for ID-EM spine tumors. These patients were treated over a 9-year period between April 2003 and October 2012 at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. Statistical analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS Of the 45 patients in the study, 27 were treated with the MIS approach and 18 were treated with the open approach. Operative time was similar between the two groups: 256.3 minutes in the MIS group versus 241.1 minutes in the open group (p = 0.55). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the MIS group (133.7 ml) compared with the open group (558.8 ml) (p < 0.01). A GTR was achieved in 94.4% of the open cases and 92.6% of the MIS cases (p = 0.81). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MIS group (3.9 days) compared with the open group (6.1 days) (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the complication rates (p = 0.32) and reoperation rates (p = 0.33) between the two groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated an increased rate of complications in cervical spine tumors (OR 15, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Thoracolumbar ID-EM tumors may be safely and effectively treated with either the open approach or an MIS approach, with an equivalent rate of GTR, perioperative complication rate, and operative time. Patients treated with an MIS approach may benefit from a decrease in operative blood loss and shorter hospital stays.

Download Full-text

Short-term Progressive Spinal Deformity Following Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy for Resection of Intradural Spinal Tumors

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1227/01.neu.0000367721.73220.c9 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 66 (5) ◽

pp. 1005-1012 ◽

Cited By ~ 73

Author(s):

Matthew J. McGirt ◽

Giannina L. Garcés-Ambrossi ◽

Scott L. Parker ◽

Daniel M. Sciubba ◽

Ali Bydon ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽

Spinal Deformity ◽

Tumor Resection ◽

Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak ◽

Neurological Function ◽

Spinal Tumors ◽

Short Term ◽

Intradural Tumor ◽

Fluid Leak

Abstract OBJECTIVE Gross total resection of intradural spinal tumors can be achieved in the majority of cases with preservation of long-term neurological function. However, postoperative progressive spinal deformity complicates outcome in a subset of patients after surgery. We set out to determine whether the use of laminoplasty (LP) vs laminectomy (LM) has reduced the incidence of subsequent spinal deformity following intradural tumor resection at our institution. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the records of 238 consecutive patients undergoing resection of intradural tumor at a single institution. The incidence of subsequent progressive kyphosis or scoliosis, perioperative morbidity, and neurological outcome were compared between the LP and LM cohorts. RESULTS One hundred eighty patients underwent LM and 58 underwent LP. Patients were 46 ± 19 years old with median modified McCormick score of 2. Tumors were intramedullary in 102 (43%) and extramedullary in 102 (43%). All baseline clinical, radiographic, and operative variables were similar between the LP and LM cohorts. LP was associated with a decreased mean length of hospitalization (5 vs 7 days; P = .002) and trend of decreased incisional cerebrospinal fluid leak (3% vs 9%; P = .14). Following LP vs LM, 5 (9%) vs 21 (12%) patients developed progressive deformity (P = .728) a mean of 14 months after surgery. The incidence of progressive deformity was also similar between LP vs LM in pediatric patients < 18 years of age (43% vs 36%), with preoperative scoliosis or loss of cervical/lumbar lordosis (28% vs 22%), or with intramedullary tumors (11% vs 11%). CONCLUSION LP for the resection of intradural spinal tumors was not associated with a decreased incidence of short-term progressive spinal deformity or improved neurological function. However, LP may be associated with a reduction in incisional cerebrospinal fluid leak. Longer-term follow-up is warranted to definitively assess the long-term effect of LP and the risk of deformity over time.

Download Full-text

Management of cervical spine deformity after intradural tumor resection

Neurosurgical FOCUS ◽

10.3171/2015.5.focus15134 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. E13 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Andrei F. Joaquim ◽

K. Daniel Riew

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Tumor Resection ◽

Neurological Deficits ◽

Spinal Tumors ◽

Spine Deformity ◽

Surgical Strategies ◽

Coronal Imbalance ◽

Intradural Tumor ◽

Cervical Spine Alignment ◽

Functional Deterioration

Management of intradural spinal tumors requires posterior decompressive techniques. Cervical spine deformity secondary to sagittal and/or coronal imbalance after a laminectomy may result in significant cervical pain and functional deterioration, as well as neurological deficits in the most severe cases. In this paper, the authors discuss the management of cervical spine deformity after intradural tumor resection, with emphasis on the surgical strategies required to reestablish acceptable cervical spine alignment and to correct postoperative deformity. In general, after an oncological evaluation, assessing the alignment, extent, and flexibility of the deformity is mandatory before surgical planning. Rigid deformities require an osteotomy and, most often, combined approaches to restore cervical alignment. Flexible deformities can often be treated with a single approach, although a circumferential approach has its advantages.

Download Full-text

Outcome Comparison of Arthroscopic versus Mini-open Technique for Ankle Arthrodesis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-24173/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Junliang Wang ◽

WENPING GE ◽

WENSHAN HU ◽

FENG LIN ◽

YUJIE LIU

Keyword(s):

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Operation Time ◽

Fusion Rate ◽

Ankle Arthrodesis ◽

Open Group ◽

Tourniquet Time ◽

Vas Score ◽

Significant Difference ◽

End Stage ◽

Mini Open

Abstract Background Ankle arthrodesis is considered to be the gold standard for the treatment of end-stage ankle diseases. At present, the commonly used methods of ankle arthrodesis include open ankle arthrodesis, arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and mini-open ankle arthrodesis. The authors analyze and compare the clinical efficacy and related complications of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and mini-open ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of end-stage ankle disease. Methods From January 2007 to June 2018, 56 patents with end-stage ankle joint pathology were treated with arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and mini-open ankle arthrodesis. There were 30 cases in arthroscopy group, including 19 males and 11 females with an average age of 49.6 years old (ranged, 32 to 71); while 26 cases in mini-open group, including 18 males and 8 females with an average age of 48.3 years old (ranged, 43 to 65). The operative time was calculated with use of computerized operative and anesthetic records. The pain visual analogue score (VAS), American Orthopedic Foot ༆ Ankle Society ankle and hind foot score (AOFAS), fusion rate, complications rate, length of hospital stay, operation time, and tourniquet time were compared between the two groups of patients. Results 51 patients were followed up for 15–35 months (mean, 22.5 ± 1.5) months. The bony fusion was achieved in all patients. The average time to fusion was 12.4 weeks (range, 10–16 weeks). The VAS score 3 days post-operation was (6.37 ± 0.69) points in the arthroscopy group and (7.61 ± 1.05) points in the mini-open group, there was significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). The VAS score and AOFAS score between the two groups pre- and post-operation have statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, VAS score was (1.55 ± 0.57) in the arthroscopy group and (1.43 ± 0.73) in the mini-open group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The AOFAS score was (85.32 ± 2.96) points in the arthroscopy group and (86.72 ± 3.05) points in the mini-open group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Arthroscopic ankle fusion was associated with a shorter tourniquet time and shorter length of hospital stay compared to mini-open ankle fusion (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between two groups in terms of operation time (P > 0.05). Wounds healing was satisfying during the follow-up in the arthroscopy group. But the wounds healing was delayed in two patients of the small incision group. All patients were satisfied with the surgery. Conclusion Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and mini-open ankle arthrodesis have satisfactory curative effect and fusion rate. Arthroscopic assisted ankle arthrodesis has more advantages, including small incision, less injury, and low morbidity.

Download Full-text