Novel combination of paraspinal keyhole surgery with a tubular retractor system leads to significant improvements in lumbar intraspinal extramedullary schwannomas

Zhuang,Yuandong; Cai,Gangfeng; Fu,Chaofeng; Zhang,Weiqiang; Zhao,Wei; Wang,Rui; Wang,Chunhua; Shi,Songsheng; Chen,Chunmei

doi:10.3892/ol.2017.7203

Novel combination of paraspinal keyhole surgery with a tubular retractor system leads to significant improvements in lumbar intraspinal extramedullary schwannomas

Authors:
- Yuandong Zhuang
- Gangfeng Cai
- Chaofeng Fu
- Weiqiang Zhang
- Wei Zhao
- Rui Wang
- Chunhua Wang
- Songsheng Shi
- Chunmei Chen
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Neurosurgery, Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Institute of Neurosurgery, Fuzhou, Fujian 350001, P.R. China
Published online on: October 18, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.7203
Pages: 7873-7879
Copyright: © Zhuang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of combining paraspinal keyhole surgery with a tubular retractor system for the microsurgical removal of lumbar intraspinal extramedullary schwannomas. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 56 patients with lumbar intraspinal extramedullary schwannomas who were treated using the microsurgical paraspinal keyhole approach with a tubular retractor system. The mean ± standard deviation was calculated for the following parameters: Surgery time (96.21±14.64 min), hemorrhagic volume (28.54±9.72 ml), bed rest (2.55±0.5 days) and hospital stay (5.68±0.72 days). Two patients presented with cerebrospinal fluid leakage and one patient exhibited a nerve root injury. At a 6‑month follow‑up visit, postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were evaluated. The mean ± standard deviation JOA scores were 12.00±2.07 for preoperative, 14.73±2.05 for 1 week postoperative, 20.07±2.32 for 3 months postoperative and 21.75±2.18 for 6 months postoperative. The improvement rate was 16.07, 47.48 and 59.77%, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation VAS scores were 6.64±1.31 for preoperative, 3.82±1.51 for 1 week postoperative, 2.11±1.17 for 3 months postoperative and 1.50±1.51 for 6 months postoperative. The JOA and VAS scores improved significantly (P<0.05). Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography were performed preoperatively, immediately following surgery and at the 6‑month postoperative visit to confirm the efficacy of the resections and evaluate spinal stability. No residual tumors were identified at follow‑up. No alterations in the stability of the spine were observed postoperatively. The combination of the microsurgical paraspinal keyhole approach with the tubular retractor system was successful in treating lumbar intraspinal extramedullary schwannomas. The surgical approach was associated with decreased hemorrhages, decreased duration of hospital stay, faster recovery and improved postoperative maintenance of spinal stability.

View Figures

View References

1	Gottfried ON, Binning MJ and Schmidt MH: Surgical approaches to spinal schwannomas. Contemporary Neurosurgery. 27:1–9. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar
2	McCormick PC: Surgical management of dumbbell tumors of the cervical spine. Neurosurgery. 38:294–300. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Samii M, Babu RP, Tatagiba M and Sepehrnia A: Surgical treatment of jugular foramen schwannomas. J Neurosurg. 82:924–932. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Chiou SM, Eggert HR, Laborde G and Seeger W: Microsurgical unilateral approaches for spinal tumour surgery: Eight years' experience in 256 primary operated patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 100:127–133. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Naganawa T, Miyamoto K, Hosoe H, Suzuki N and Shimizu K: Hemilaminectomy for removal of extramedullary or extradural spinal cord tumors: Medium to long-term clinical outcomes. Yonsei Med J. 52:121–129. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Sario-glu AC, Hanci M, Bozkuş H, Kaynar MY and Kafadar A: Unilateral hemilaminectomy for the removal of the spinal space-occupying lesions. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 40:74–77. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Chiou SM, Eggert H, Laborde G and Seeger W: Microsurgical unilateral approaches for spinal tumour surgery: Eight years' experience in 256 primary operated patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 100:127–133. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Eggert H, Scheremet R, Seeger W and Gaitzsch J: Unilateral microsurgical approaches to extramedullary spinal tumours. Operative technique and results. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 67:245–253. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Sridhar K, Ramamurthi R, Vasudevan MC and Ramamurthi B: Limited unilateral approach for extramedullary spinal tumours. Br J Neurosurg. 12:430–433. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Bertalanffy H, Mitani S, Otani M, Ichikizaki K and Toya S: Usefulness of hemilaminectomy for microsurgical management of intraspinal lesions. Keio J Med. 41:76–79. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Lee GW, Jang SJ, Shin SM, Jang JH and Kim JD: Clinical and radiological outcomes following microscopic decompression utilizing tubular retractor or conventional microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis with a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 24 Suppl 1:S145–S151. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Chotigavanichaya C, Korwutthikulrangsri E, Suratkarndawadee S, Ruangchainikom M, Watthanaapisith T, Tanapipatsiri S and Chotivichit A: Minimally invasive lumbar disectomy with the tubular retractor system: 4–7 years follow-up. J Med Assoc Thai. 95 Suppl 9:S82–S86. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
13	Kunert P, Kowalczyk P and Marchel A: Minimally invasive microscopically assisted lumbar discectomy using the METRx X-Tube system. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 44:554–559. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
14	Lee CK, Park JY and Zhang HY: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a single interbody cage and a tubular retraction system: Technical tips, and perioperative, radiologic and clinical outcomes. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 48:219–224. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Schwartz TH and McCormick PC: Spinal cord tumors in adultsYoumans Neurological Surgery. Winn HR: 4. 5th edition. pp. 4817–4834. WB Saunders Philadelphia; PA, USA: 2004
16	Devereaux MW: Neck and low back pain. Med Clin North Am. 87:643–662. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Wu G, Ghimire P, Zhu L, Baral A and Su J: Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of primary intraspinal peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumour. Can Assoc Radiol J. 64:240–245. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Teksam M, Casey SO, Michel E, Benson M and Truwit CL: Intraspinal epidermoid cyst: Diffusion-weighted MRI. Neuroradiology. 43:572–574. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Kukreja K, Manzano G, Ragheb J and Medina LS: Differentiation between pediatric spinal arachnoid and epidermoid-dermoid cysts: Is diffusion-weighted MRI useful? Pediatr Radiol. 37:556–560. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Tang L, Cianfoni A and Imbesi SG: Diffusion-weighted imaging distinguishes recurrent epidermoid neoplasm from postoperative arachnoid cyst in the lumbosacral spine. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 30:507–509. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	McCormick PC, Post KD and Stein BM: Intradural extramedullary tumors in adults. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1:591–608. 1990.PubMed/NCBI
22	Dickman C, Fehlings M and Gokaslan ZL: Spinal Cord and Spinal Column Tumors: Principles and Practice. Thieme; New York, NY: pp. 7122006
23	Hussein AA, El-Karef E and Hafez M: Reconstructive surgery in spinal tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol. 272:196–199. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar
24	Seppälä MT, Haltia MJ, Sankila RJ, Jääskeläinen JE and Heiskanen O: Long-term outcome after removal of spinal schwannoma: A clinicopathological study of 187 cases. J Neurosurg. 83:621–626. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Sridhar K, Ramamurthi R, Vasudevan MC and Ramamurthi B: Giant invasive spinal schwannomas: Definition and surgical management. J Neurosurg. 94 Suppl 2:S210–S215. 2001.
26	Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klöckner C and Bergmann G: Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J. 12:427–434. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Wigfield CC, Skrzypiec D, Jackowski A and Adams MA: Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: The influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 16:441–449. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Sköld C, Tropp H and Berg S: Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: A randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 22:2288–2295. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Wei J, Song Y, Sun L and Lv C: Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop. 37:1315–1325. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH and Lim J: Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 7:33–39. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Park AE and Heller JG: Cervical laminoplasty: Use of a novel titanium plate to maintain canal expansion-surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 17:265–271. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Acioly MA, Carvalho CH, Koerbel A, Heckl S, Tatagiba M and Gharabaghi A: The role of the trigeminocardiac reflex in postoperative hearing function in non-vestibular schwannoma cerebellopontine angle tumors. J Clin Neurosci. 18:237–240. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Palmer S: Use of a tubular retractor system in microscopic lumbar discectomy: 1 year prospective results in 135 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 13:E52002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Parikh K, Tomasino A, Knopman J, Boockvar J and Härtl R: Operative results and learning curve: Microscope-assisted tubular microsurgery for 1- and 2-level discectomies and laminectomies. Neurosurg Focus. 25:E142008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Ranjan A and Lath R: Microendoscopic discectomy for prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. Neurol India. 54:190–194. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
36	Yoshimoto M, Takebayashi T, Kawaguchi S, Tsuda H, Ida K, Wada T, Suzuki D and Yamashita T: Minimally invasive technique for decompression of lumbar foraminal stenosis using a spinal microendoscope: Technical note. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 54:142–146. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Foley KT, Smith MM and Rampersaud YR: Microendoscopic approach to far-lateral lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus. 7:e51999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Fessler RG and Khoo LT: Minimally invasive cervical microendoscopic foraminotomy: An initial clinical experience. Neurosurgery. 51 Suppl 5:S37–S45. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Chunmei Chen, Fenggang Cai, Weiqiang Zhang, Rui Wang, Yan Chen, Feng Li, et al: The comparison between paraspinal sleeve approach with posterior midline approach microsurgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Chin J Neurosurg. 30:677–681. 2014.(In Chinese).