Total spondylectomy for Enneking stage III giant cell tumor of the mobile spine

Yokogawa, Noriaki; Murakami, Hideki; Demura, Satoru; Kato, Satoshi; Yoshioka, Katsuhito; Shimizu, Takaki; Oku, Norihiro; Kitagawa, Ryo; Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki

doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5761-3

Cited by 32 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, adjuvant therapies have risks of iatrogenic injuries of the spinal cord and major vessels; therefore, en bloc resection has been recommended 2,3) . Although total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) 1) might be the best strategy to avoid recurrence, surgical technique is challenging with the possibility of severe complications especially in the lumbar spine, including damage to the major vessels, ureter, or nerve roots 4,5) . Therefore, in a case with enough tumor margin, subtotal spondylectomy shown in this study might be an appropriate surgical method for aggressive benign tumors with less risks of intraoperative complications.…”

Section: Subtotal Spondylectomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Subtotal En Bloc Resection of the Fourth Lumbar Vertebra for Giant Cell Tumor Using Combined Posterior and Lateral Retroperitoneal Approach

Ono

Otsuki

Fujibayashi

et al. 2021

Spine Surg Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Subtotal Spondylectomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Subtotal En Bloc Resection of the Fourth Lumbar Vertebra for Giant Cell Tumor Using Combined Posterior and Lateral Retroperitoneal Approach

Ono

Otsuki

Fujibayashi

et al. 2021

Spine Surg Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Primary surgery (TES) consisted of en bloc laminectomy after transpedicular osteotomy, subsequent en bloc corpectomy, and spinal reconstruction [8,20]. After en bloc laminectomy, two-above and two-below segmental fixations were performed in all patients.…”

Section: Surgical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) was developed for complete surgical resection for spinal tumors [1,2]. TES was reported to produce less local recurrence and better survival than piecemeal resection for primary tumors [3][4][5][6][7], aggressive benign tumors [1,8], or metastatic spinal tumors [1,9]. TES involves complete resection of the affected vertebra(e) and surrounding musculoligamentous supportive tissues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series

Shinmura

Kato

Demura

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There have been several reports of instrumentation failure after three-column resections such as total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors; however, clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES are seldom reported. Therefore, this study assessed the clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES. Methods: This study employed a retrospective case series in a single center and included 61 patients with spinal tumors who underwent TES between 2010 and 2015 and were followed up for > 2 years. Instrumentation failure rate, back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, operation time, blood loss, complications, bone fusion after revision surgery, and re-instrumentation failure were assessed. Data were collected on back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, and management for patients with instrumentation failure, and we documented radiological bone fusion and re-instrumentation failure in cases followed up for > 2 years after revision surgery. Results: Of the 61 patients, 26 (42.6%) experienced instrumentation failure at an average of 32 (range, 11-92) months after TES. Of these, 23 underwent revision surgery. The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 204 min and 97 ml, respectively. Including the six patients who were unable to walk after instrumentation failure, all patients were able to walk after revision surgery. Perioperative complications of reoperation were surgical site infection (n = 2) and delayed wound healing (n = 1). At the final follow-up, bone fusion was observed in all patients. No re-instrumentation failure was recorded. Conclusion: Bone fusion was achieved by revision surgery using the posterior approach alone.

show abstract

“…Total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) was developed for complete surgical resection for spinal tumours [1,2]. TES was reported to produce less local recurrence and better survival than piecemeal resection for primary tumours [3][4][5][6][7], aggressive benign tumours [1,8], or metastatic spinal tumours [1,9]. TES involves complete resection of the affected vertebra(e) and surrounding musculoligamentous supportive tissues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision Surgery for Instrumentation Failure after Total En Bloc Spondylectomy: A Retrospective Case Series

Shinmura

Kato²,

Demura

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:There have been several reports of instrumentation failure after 3-column resections such as total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumours; nevertheless, clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES are seldom reported. Therefore, this study assessed the clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES.Methods:This study employed a retrospective case series in a single centre and included 61 patients with spinal tumours who underwent TES between 2010 and 2015 and followed for >2 years. Instrumentation failure rate, back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, operation time, blood loss, complications, bone fusion after revision surgery, and re-instrumentation failure were assessed. Data were collected on back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, and management for patients with instrumentation failure, and we documented radiological bone fusion and re-instrumentation failure in cases followed for >2 years after revision surgery.Results:Of the 61 patients, 26 (42.6%) experienced instrumentation failure at an average of 32 (range, 11−92) months after TES. Of these, 23 underwent revision surgery. The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 204 min and 97 ml, respectively. Including the six patients who were unable to walk after instrumentation failure, all patients were able to walk after revision surgery. Perioperative complications of reoperation were surgical site infection (n = 2) and delayed wound healing (n = 1). At the final follow-up, bone fusion was observed in all patients. No re-instrumentation failure was recorded.Conclusion:Bone fusion was achieved by revision surgery using the posterior approach alone.

show abstract

Total spondylectomy for Enneking stage III giant cell tumor of the mobile spine

Abstract: TES with intralesional pediculotomy had a good surgical outcome even in patients with Enneking stage III spinal GCT, suggesting that minimal intralesional procedures could radically cure spinal GCTs. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Cited by 32 publications

References 26 publications

Subtotal En Bloc Resection of the Fourth Lumbar Vertebra for Giant Cell Tumor Using Combined Posterior and Lateral Retroperitoneal Approach

Subtotal En Bloc Resection of the Fourth Lumbar Vertebra for Giant Cell Tumor Using Combined Posterior and Lateral Retroperitoneal Approach

Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series

Revision Surgery for Instrumentation Failure after Total En Bloc Spondylectomy: A Retrospective Case Series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About