A new study published in Clinical Spine Surgery compares minimally invasive and open surgery for metastatic spinal tumors.
The study authors examined 50 patients registered with the Keio Spine Research Group who underwent surgery for spinal tumors in January 2009 to June 2015. Half of the patients underwent the minimally invasive procedures and the other half underwent conventional open surgery. Study authors found:
1. Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery experienced less blood loss — 340 mL compared to 714 mL — and less postoperative drainage.
2. Three patients in the minimally invasive group had red blood cell transfusions, compared to 10 patients in the open group.
3. Perioperative bed rest was 1.5 days shorter for the minimally invasive group than the open group.
4. Perioperative complications were lower in the minimally invasive group — three patients — compared to the open group — 11 patients. Neurological deficits and pain improved significantly in both groups after surgery.
5. Study authors concluded minimally invasive surgery for metastatic tumors is effective and "should be considered as a valid option for the treatment of metastatic spinal tumor patients with a short life expectancy."