Freehand Minimally Invasive Pedicle Screw Fixation and Minimally Invasive Decompression for a Thoracic or Lumbar Vertebral Metastatic Tumor From Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Objective: To compare freehand minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation (freehand MIPS) combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP), minimally invasive decompression, and partial tumor resection with open surgery for treatment of thoracic or lumbar vertebral metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with symptoms of neurologic compression, and evaluate its feasibility, efficacy, and safety.Methods: Forty-seven patients with 1-level HCC metastatic thoracolumbar tumor and neurologic symptoms were included between February 2015 and April 2017. Among them, 21 patients underwent freehand MIPS combined with PVP, minimally invasive decompression, and partial tumor resection (group 1), while 26 patients were treated with open surgery (group 2). Duration of operation, blood loss, times of fluoroscopy, incision length, and stay in hospital were compared between the two groups. Pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade, ambulatory status, and urinary continence were also recorded. The Cobb angle and central and anterior vertebral body height were measured on lateral radiographs before surgery and during follow-ups.Results: Patients in group 1 showed significantly less blood loss (195.5 ± 169.1 ml vs. 873.1 ± 317.9 ml, P = 0.000), shorter incision length (3.4 ± 0.3 vs. 13.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = 0.000), shorter median stay in hospital (4–8/6 vs. 8–17/12 days, P = 0.000), more median times of fluoroscopy (5–11/6 vs. 4–7/5 times, P = 0.000), and longer duration of operation (204.8 ± 12.1 vs. 171.0 ± 12.0 min, P = 0.000) than group 2. Though VAS significantly decreased after surgery in both groups, VAS of group 1 was significantly lower than that of group 2 immediately after surgery and during follow-ups (P < 0.05). Similar results were found in ODI. No differences in the neurological improvement and spinal stability were observed between the two groups.Conclusion: Freehand MIPS combined with PVP, minimally invasive decompression, and partial tumor resection is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive method for treating thoracolumbar metastatic tumors of HCC, with less blood loss, better pain relief, and shorter length of midline incision and stay in hospital.

Revision surgery following minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with and without stable degenerative spondylolisthesis: a 5- to 15-year reoperation survival analysis

OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive decompression (MID) is an effective procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Long-term follow-up data on reoperation rates are lacking. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate reoperation rates in patients with LSS who underwent MID, stratified for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), with a follow-up between 5 and 15 years. METHODS All consecutive patients with LSS who underwent MID between 2002 and 2011 were included. All patients had neurogenic claudication from central and/or lateral recess stenosis, without or with up to 25% of slippage (grade I spondylolisthesis), and no obvious dynamic instability on imaging (increase in spondylolisthesis by ≥ 5 mm demonstrated on supine-to-standing or flexion-extension imaging). Reoperation rates defined as any operation on the same or adjacent level were assessed. Revision decompression alone was considered if the aforementioned clinical and radiographic criteria were met; otherwise, patients underwent a minimally invasive posterior fusion. RESULTS A total of 246 patients (mean age 66 years) were included. Preoperative spondylolisthesis was present in 56.9%. The mean follow-up period was 8.2 years (range 5.0−14.9 years). The reoperation rates in patients with and without spondylolisthesis were 15.7% and 15.1%, respectively; fusion was required in 7.1% and 7.5%, with no significant difference (redecompression only, p = 0.954; fusion, p = 0.546). For decompression only, the mean times to reoperation were 3.9 years (95% CI 1.8−6.0 years) for patients with DLS and 2.8 years (95% CI 1.3−4.2 years) for patients without DLS; for fusion, the mean times to reoperation were 3.1 years (95% CI 1.0−5.3 years) and 3.1 years (95% CI 1.1−5.1 years), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In highly selected patients with stable DLS and leg-dominant pain from central or lateral recess stenosis, the long-term reoperation rate is similar between DLS and non-DLS patients undergoing MIS decompression.

Minimally Invasive Management of Civilian Gunshot Wounds to the Lumbar Spine: A Case Series and Technical Report

BACKGROUND Treatment of penetrating gunshot wounds (GSW) to the spine remains controversial. The decision to operate is often based on surgeon preference and experience. We present a case series of 7 patients who underwent minimally invasive thoracolumbar/sacral decompression and bullet removal at a level 1 trauma center. OBJECTIVE To describe the use of minimally invasive techniques to achieve decompression and bullet removal for GSW to the spine. METHODS From 2010 to 2017, 7 patients with spinal GSW underwent minimally invasive decompression and bullet removal at an academic level 1 trauma center. RESULTS Patient ages ranged from 20 to 55 yr (mean: 31 yr). The mechanisms of injury were GSW to the abdomen/pelvis (n = 6) and direct GSW to the spine (n = 1). Based on the neurological examination, the injuries were characterized as complete (n = 1) or incomplete (n = 6). Decompression and bullet removal were performed using a tubular retractor system. All patients with incomplete injuries who had postdischarge follow-up demonstrated some neurologic recovery. There were no postoperative wound infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) fistulas, or other complications related to the procedure. CONCLUSION Minimally invasive decompression and bullet removal is a safe technique that may help reduce the risk of postoperative infections and CSF fistulas in patients with GSW to the lumbar spine compared to the standard open technique. This approach appears to be particularly beneficial in patients with incomplete injuries and neuropathic pain refractory to medical treatment.