OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional open surgery for spinal metastasis patients.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is lack of knowledge on whether MIS is comparable to conventional open surgery in treating spinal metastasis.
METHODS: Patients 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.
RESULTS: Both 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).
CONCLUSION: This 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 EVIDENCE: 3.
CASE PRESENTATION: A 25 years old female had neglected an extremely large midline sacral mass for 2 years. On presentation to hospital, she had been bed bound for the past 2 years. The sacral mass was so large that it prevented her from lying down supine and sitting on the wheelchair comfortably. Clinical examination showed a 40 cm × 30 cm × 20 cm hard mass over the sacrum that involved both buttocks and the gluteal fold. Neurological exam of bilateral lower limb was normal. Computed Tomography Scan of the Pelvis showed a large destructive sacrococcygeal mass measuring 43 cm × 38 cm × 27 cm with extension into the presacral space resulting in anterior displacement of the rectum, urinary bladder and uterus; and posterior extension into the dorsal soft tissue with involvement of the gluteus, piriformis, and left erector spinae muscles. Biopsy taken confirmed Chordoma. This patient was managed by a multidisciplinary team in an Oncology referral centre. The patient had undergone Wide En Bloc Resection and Sacrectomy, a complex surgery that was associated with complications namely bleeding, surgical site infection and neurogenic bowel and bladder. Six months post operatively the patient was able to lie supine and sit on wheelchair comfortably. She required extensive rehabilitation to help her ambulate in future.
CONCLUSION: This is a rare case of neglected sacral chordoma in a young female treated with Wide En Bloc Resection and Sacrectomy associated with complications of this complex surgery. Nevertheless, surgery is still worthwhile to improve the quality of life and to prevent complications secondary to prolonged immobilization. A multidisciplinary approach is ideal and team members need to be prepared to address the complications once they arise.