Levin Rafael, Matusz David, Hasharoni Amir, Scharf Carrie, Lonner Baron, Errico Thomas
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University-Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Spine J. 2005 Nov-Dec;5(6):632-8. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.03.013.
Combining anterior release and interbody fusion with posterior instrumented fusion is an accepted treatment for severe rigid spinal deformity. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and mini-open thoracoscopically assisted thoracotomy (MOTA) are two minimally invasive approaches to the thoracic spine. Both reduce surgical trauma, improve cosmesis and provide effective exposure for release and fusion. Published data and the authors' surgical experience have demonstrated that both techniques are equivalent in degree of release to traditional open thoracotomy, but no comparison between these two minimally invasive alternatives has been published to our knowledge.
This study compared MOTA and VATS under the hypothesis that both result in similar corrections and comparable operative parameters when used in conjunction with posterior instrumented fusion.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective chart review of consecutive case series by two surgeons.
Twenty-one (13 female, 8 male) patients underwent MOTA and 24 patients (17 female, 7 male) underwent VATS for anterior release, discectomy and fusion prior to posterior instrumented fusion.
Outcomes were measured at a minimum of 1-year follow-up and included radiographic Cobb measurements and operative parameters.
The indications for surgery included rigid and severe scoliosis or thoracic kyphosis. Data collection included preoperative demographics, number of levels released, primary curve correction, operative time and blood loss. Data were normalized per number of levels released anteriorly. Statistical analysis of results was done using a two-sample t test assuming equal variances with two-tail p values less than .05.
More anterior levels were operated on average in the VATS group (6.33 vs. 4.38 levels). Curve correction per anterior level released was similar in both groups (8.7 and 8.8 degrees/level for MOTA and VATS, respectively). There was a significant difference in operative time with MOTA averaging 131.7 minutes and VATS averaging 162.8 minutes. However, a comparison of the operative time per anterior level operated, approached statistical significance in favor of VATS (33.0 vs. 28.4 minutes, p=.08). There was no significant difference in estimated blood loss during the anterior portion of the surgeries. There was a trend toward decreased blood loss per operated level favoring VATS (68.4 vs. 38.9 cc, p=.09).
Both approaches resulted in corrections that compare favorably with open thoracotomy. We suggest that a factor in choosing between these two minimally invasive techniques is the number of thoracic levels requiring release. For four levels or less, MOTA provides an excellent alternative to standard thoracotomy. For five or more levels, VATS provides for excellent exposure of additional levels with the advantages of less operative time and blood loss per operated level.
前路松解、椎间融合与后路器械辅助融合相结合是治疗严重僵硬性脊柱畸形的一种公认方法。电视辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)和微创胸腔镜辅助开胸术(MOTA)是两种用于胸椎的微创方法。两者都能减少手术创伤、改善美观,并为松解和融合提供有效的暴露。已发表的数据和作者的手术经验表明,这两种技术在松解程度上与传统开胸手术相当,但据我们所知,尚未有这两种微创方法之间的比较发表。
本研究比较了MOTA和VATS,假设两者在与后路器械辅助融合联合使用时能产生相似的矫正效果和可比的手术参数。
研究设计/地点:两位外科医生对连续病例系列进行回顾性病历审查。
21例(13例女性,8例男性)患者接受了MOTA,24例(17例女性,7例男性)患者接受了VATS,用于前路松解、椎间盘切除术和融合,然后进行后路器械辅助融合。
至少随访1年时测量结果,包括影像学Cobb测量值和手术参数。
手术适应证包括僵硬性和严重脊柱侧凸或胸椎后凸。数据收集包括术前人口统计学资料、松解节段数、主弯矫正、手术时间和失血量。数据按前路松解节段数进行标准化。结果的统计分析采用两样本t检验,假设方差齐性,双侧p值小于0.05。
VATS组平均手术的前路节段更多(6.33节段对4.38节段)。两组每松解一个前路节段的弯度矫正相似(MOTA和VATS分别为8.7度/节段和8.8度/节段)。手术时间有显著差异,MOTA平均为131.7分钟,VATS平均为162.8分钟。然而,比较每个手术前路节段的手术时间,接近统计学意义,有利于VATS(33.0分钟对28.4分钟,p = 0.08)。手术前部估计失血量无显著差异。每手术节段失血量有减少趋势,有利于VATS(68.4毫升对38.9毫升,p = 0.09)。
两种方法都能产生与开胸手术相当的矫正效果。我们认为,在这两种微创技术之间进行选择的一个因素是需要松解的胸段节段数。对于四个或更少节段,MOTA是标准开胸手术的极佳替代方法。对于五个或更多节段,VATS能很好地暴露更多节段,具有每个手术节段手术时间和失血量更少的优点。