Dataset Information

Interdisciplinary Surgical Treatments and Long-Term Outcomes of Lumbar Spinal Tumors With Retroperitoneal Involvements: A Retrospective Case Series Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Surgical treatments are technically challenging for lumbar spinal tumor (LST) with extensive retroperitoneal involvements. Our study aimed to report the experience and outcomes concerning interdisciplinary surgical collaborations in managing such LSTs.

Patients and methods

Nine patients underwent interdisciplinary surgical treatments which were performed by specialists, namely, spinal, vascular, and urinary surgeries. Data on clinical characteristics were collected, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOAS) were used in the evaluation before and after surgery. The postoperative complications and the long-term outcomes were reported as well.

Results

The interdisciplinary work included double J catheter indwelling (n = 9), nephrostomy (n = 5), replacement of the common iliac vein (n = 2), abdominal aorta repair (n = 3), and vital vessel repair (n = 8). The early-stage complications included complaints of moderate low back pain and slight implant shift (n = 1, 11.1%) and tardive ureterodialysis (n = 1, 11.1%). The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 76.2 ± 14.8 and 50.8 ± 23.0%, respectively, during the mean follow-up of 34.6 ± 17.9 months (range, 9.5-68.7). Besides this, more blood loss was associated with recurrent and metastatic tumor status (p = 0.043) and surgery time >5 h (p = 0.023). Remarkable pain relief and favorable quality of life were achieved based on the postoperative VAS (3.3 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and JOAS (16.6 ± 0.5, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The treatments of LSTs with wide-range retroperitoneal involvements require interdisciplinary surgical collaborations to lower the risks and improve the long-term outcomes. High-quality prospective cohort studies with large samples are warranted to establish general surgical protocols in managing LSTs with extensive retroperitoneal involvements.

SUBMITTER: He S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8733943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRetroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is a rare disease often requiring multi-visceral and wide margin resections for which a resection in a sarcoma center is advised. Midline incision seems to be the access of choice. However, up to now there is no evidence for the best surgical access. This study aimed to analyze the oncological outcome according to the surgical expertise and also the incision used for the resection.MethodsAll patients treated for RPS between 2007 and 2018 at the Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine of the University Hospital Bern and receiving a RPS resection in curative intent were included. Patient- and treatment specific factors as well as local recurrence-free, disease-free and overall survival were analyzed in correlation to the hospital type where the resection occurred.ResultsThirty-five patients were treated for RPS at our center. The majority received their primary RPS resection at a sarcoma center (SC = 23) the rest of the resection were performed in a non-sarcoma center (non-SC = 12). Median tumor size was 24 cm. Resections were performed via a midline laparotomy (ML = 31) or flank incision (FI = 4). All patients with a primary FI (n = 4) were operated in a non-SC (p = 0.003). No patient operated at a non-SC received a multivisceral resection (p = 0.004). Incomplete resection (R2) was observed more often when resection was done in a non-SC (p = 0.013). Resection at a non-SC was significantly associated with worse recurrence-free survival and disease-free survival after R0/1 resection (2 vs 17 months; Log Rank p-value = 0.02 respectively 2 vs 15 months; Log Rank p-value < 0.001).ConclusionsResection at a non-SC is associated with more incomplete resection and worse outcome in RPS surgery. Inadequate access, such as FI, may prevent complete resection and multivisceral resection if indicated and demonstrates the importance of surgical expertise in the outcome of RPS resection.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgery remains the main curative option for the treatment of intraspinal tumour. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the clinical outcomes of laminoplasty with process-lamina complex replantation compared with laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation for intraspinal tumours. METHODS:In our retrospective analysis, 27 patients received tumour resection surgery by laminoplasty with reconstruction plate fixation and 32 patients received laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation. All patients were followed up for at least 1?year. Data, including surgical time, blood loss, volume of drainage, drainage time, hospital stay, complications, and neurological status were compared. In addition, imaging evaluation was also included. RESULTS:Patients in the laminoplasty group had lower blood loss (laminoplasty group: 281.5?±?130.2?mL; laminectomy group: 450.0?±?224.3?mL; p =?0.001), shorter surgical time (laminoplasty group: 141.7?± 26.2?min, laminectomy group: 175.3?± 50.4?min; p =?0.003), lower volume of drainage (laminoplasty group: 1578.9?±?821.7?mL, laminectomy group: 2621.2?±?1351.0?mL; p =?0.001), shorter drainage time (laminoplasty group: 6.6?±?2.5?days, laminectomy group: 9.7?±?1.8?days; p =?0.000), and a shorter hospital stay (laminoplasty group: 16.9?±?4.9?days, laminectomy group: 21.0?±?4.4?days; p =?0.002) compared with patients in the laminectomy group. There were significant differences of oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) between the two groups at 12?months postoperatively (p =?0.034). The incidence of secondary spinal stenosis in the laminoplasty group was significantly reduced (p =?0.029). CONCLUSIONS:Laminoplasty in intraspinal tumour resection has a lower blood loss and volume of drainage, shorter surgical time and hospital stay as advantages over the standard laminectomy technique. Moreover, laminoplasty can effectively avoid iatrogenic spinal canal stenosis and thus enhancing functional recovery of spinal cord.

Project description:Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness of conservative treatments including pharmacological treatments and nonpharmacological treatments on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: We searched six electronic databases systematically for randomized clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2021, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library. The studies focused on the therapeutic effects of pharmacological treatments including calcitonin, antiepileptics, neurotrophic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Chinese Traditional Medicine, limaprost, and nonpharmacological treatments like physiotherapy for treating lumbar spinal stenosis were included. The outcome was measured using the visual analog scale, Oswestry Dysfunction Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, and EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. The quality of eligible studies was assessed by using the Cochrane recommended bias risk assessment tool. Stata was used to conduct the network meta-analysis. Results: A total of 12 randomized control trials with 1,194 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that for the visual analog scale, a better therapeutic effect was noted while using Chinese Traditional Medicine and physiotherapy, followed by analgesics drugs and limaprost. Limaprost and calcitonin were better in decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index. In terms of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, the use of traditional Chinese Medicine and limaprost were associated with a better improvement than other treatments. Meanwhile, limaprost combined with analgesics drugs was found to be effective to improve the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. Conclusion: Among the commonly used conservative treatments for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, limaprost may have better efficacy in improving the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score and decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index, with a beneficial effect on decreasing the visual analog scale and improving the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. Systematic Review Registration: website, identifier registration number.