Posts

Periosteal Variety of Sacral Osteoid Osteoma Encroaching into the Spinal Canal – Treatment with a Tubular Retractor System: Case Report

/in /by

Volume 2 | Issue 2 | October 2021-March 2022 | page: 89-92 | Ravish Patel, Shivam Shah, Naresh Kumar, Shammi Patel

DOI: 10.13107/bbj.2022.v02i02.028

Authors: Ravish Patel [1], Shivam Shah [1], Naresh Kumar [2], Shammi Patel [3]

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sunshine Global Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
[2] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore.
[3] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Krupa Orthopaedic Hospital, Surat, Gujarat, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ravish Patel,
Consultant Spine Surgeon, Sunshine Global Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
E-mail: ravishspine@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: Osteoid osteomas are benign primary bone tumors with a predilection for posterior elements of the spinal column. Complete surgical excision through a traditional open approach is the treatment of choice for patients not responding to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and patients with contraindications for nidus ablation. The study aims to highlight an alternative minimally invasive technique for complete surgical excision of osteoid osteoma encroaching into the spinal canal.
Methods: We report a case of 22 years-old obese male suffering from left S1 radiculopathy and night pain. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT)-scan of the lumbosacral region revealed a benign bony lesion of size 13 mm × 11 mm × 8 mm encroaching from S1 lamina into the spinal canal and compressing left S1 root. Peri-lesional bony sclerosis and soft tissue edema were absent. In view of obesity and a small size of the lesion, it was decided to remove the lesion with a tubular retractor system under general anesthesia. Complete resection of the lesion was carried out sparing the L5-S1 facet, with a minimally invasive approach.
Results: Patient had complete symptomatic improvement after the surgery. Histopathology showed interconnected trabeculae of woven bone matrix rimmed by osteoclasts consistent with the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma. Post-operative CT scan showed that the nidus was removed completely and important structures such as facet, pedicle, and midline posterior ligament complex were preserved. The patient resumed his daily activities and remained symptoms-free at the end of 6 months of follow-up.
Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery using a tubular retractor system can be safe and effective alternative to traditional open surgery for excision of osteoid osteoma from the posterior elements. Faster recovery, minimal tissue damage, and early return to work are added advantages for an obese patient undergoing minimally invasive total surgical excision.
Keywords: Benign bone tumors, Sacral spine, Osteoid osteoma, Periosteal osteoid osteoma, Minimally invasive spine surgery, Tubular retractor system

References

1. Gasbarrini A, Cappuccio M, Bandiera S, Amendola L, van Urk P, Boriani S. Osteoid osteoma of the mobile spine: Surgical outcomes in 81 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:2089-93.
2. Jackson RP, Reckling FW, Mants FA. Osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma. Similar histologic lesions with different natural histories. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;128:303-13.
3. Janin Y, Epstein JA, Carras R, Khan A. Osteoid osteomas and osteoblastomas of the spine. Neurosurgery 1981;8:31-8.
4. Kirwan EO, Hutton PA, Pozo JL, Ransford AO. Osteoid osteoma and benign osteoblastoma of the spine. Clinical presentation and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984;66:21-6.
5. Zileli M, Cagli S, Basdemir G, Ersahin Y. Osteoid osteomas and osteoblastomas of the spine. Neurosurg Focus 2003;15:E5.
6. Noordin S, Allana S, Hilal K, Nadeem N, Lakdawala R, Sadruddin A, et al. Osteoid osteoma: Contemporary management. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2018;10:7496.
7. Kadhim M, Binitie O, O’Toole P, Grigoriou E, De Mattos CB, Dormans JP. Surgical resection of osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma of the spine. J Pediatr Orthop B 2017;26:362-9.
8. Albisinni U, Facchini G, Spinnato P, Gasbarrini A, Bazzocchi A. Spinal osteoid osteoma: Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation. Skeletal Radiol 2017;46:1087-94.
9. Kneisl JS, Simon MA. Medical management compared with operative treatment for osteoid-osteoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:179-85.
10. Etemadifar MR, Hadi A. Clinical findings and results of surgical resection in 19 cases of spinal osteoid osteoma. Asian Spine J 2015;9:386-93.
11. Pourfeizi HH, Tabrizi A, Bazavar M, Sales JG. Clinical findings and results of surgical resection of thoracolumbar osteoid osteoma. Asian Spine J 2014;8:150-5.
12. Tsoumakidou G, Thenint MA, Garnon J, Buy X, Steib JP, Gangi A. Percutaneous image-guided laser photocoagulation of spinal osteoid osteoma: A single-institution series. Radiology 2016;278:936-43.
13. Santiago E, Pauly V, Brun G, Guenoun D, Champsaur P, Le Corroller T. Percutaneous cryoablation for the treatment of osteoid osteoma in the adult population. Eur Radiol 2018;28:2336-44.
14. Nzokou A, Weil AG, Shedid D. Minimally invasive removal of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors using a nonexpandable tubular retractor. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;19:708-15.
15. Nakamura Y, Yabuki S, Kikuchi S, Konno S. Minimally invasive surgery for osteoid osteoma of the cervical spine using microendoscopic discectomy system. Asian Spine J 2013;7:143-7.
16. Xie T, Xiu P, Song Y, Zeng J, Huang S. Percutaneous endoscopic excision and ablation of osteoid osteoma of the lumbar spine and sacrum: A technical note and outcomes. World Neurosurg 2020;133:121-6.
17. Kim CW, Siemionow K, Anderson DG, Phillips FM. The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. Instr Course Lect 2011;60:353-70.
18. Kim YB, Hyun SJ. Clinical applications of the tubular retractor on spinal disorders. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2007;42:245-50.
19. Hikata T, Fujita N, Iwanami A, Watanabe K, Nakamura M, Matsumoto M, et al. Remodeling of the cervical facet joint after minimally invasive microendoscopic resection for cervical osteoid osteoma. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:E1191-4.
20. Jeong DM, Paeng SH. Enchondroma of the cervical spine in young woman: A rare case report. Asian J Neurosurg 2015;10:334-7.
21. Harish S, Saifuddin A. Imaging features of spinal osteoid osteoma with emphasis on MRI findings. Eur Radiol 2005;15:2396-403.
22. Gamba JL, Martinez S, Apple J, Harrelson JM, Nunley JA. Computed tomography of axial skeletal osteoid osteomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:769-72.
23. Barlow E, Davies AM, Cool WP, Barlow D, Mangham DC. Osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma: Novel histological and immunohistochemical observations as evidence for a single entity. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:768-74.
24. Ilyas I, Younge DA. Medical management of osteoid osteoma. Can J Surg 2002;45:435-7.

 

How to Cite this Article: Patel R, Shah S, Kumar N, Patel S Periosteal Variety of Sacral | Osteoid Osteoma Encroaching into the Spinal Canal – Treatment with a Tubular Retractor System: Case Report | Back Bone: The Spine Journal | October 2021-March 2022; 2(2): 93-97.

(Abstract Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

.

Minimally Invasive Trans-foraminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): Technique, Tips and Tricks.

/in /by

Volume 2 | Issue 2 | October 2021-March 2022 | page: 60-64 | Sanjeev Asati, Saijyot Raut, Vishal Kundnani, Amit Chugh, Ameya Rangekar, Praveen VNR Goparaju
DOI: 10.13107/bbj.2022.v02i02.023

Authors: Sanjeev Asati [1], Saijyot Raut [1], Vishal Kundnani [1], Amit Chugh [1], Ameya Rangekar [1], Praveen VNR Goparaju [1]

[1] Department of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
[2] Mumbai Spine Scoliosis and Disc Replacement Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Saijyot Raut,
Clinical spine fellow, Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Mumbai Spine Scoliosis and Disc Replacement Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: saijyotraut@gmail.com

Abstract

Surgical interbody fusion is the main stay of treatment in many lumbar pathologies. Of these, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has progressively gained popularity among fusions due to its safety and satisfactory results. With the ever-ending evolution of technological advancements enabled spine surgeons to embrace minimally invasive surgeries mainly due to focal nature of the pathology. Tubular retractors have been tried and tested with very good results when used with microscopic magnification. They helps in surgical decompression and fusion through transforaminal approach with minimal footprint and have proven their versatility by delivering excellent outcomes. Near total bloodless surgery, better cosmesis, decreased hospital stay, lower pain score, early return to work, are some other proven advantages with minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion MIS-TLIF. However, high procedural costs and longer trajectory of learning is restraining many surgeons from adapting this technique over time tested open procedures. In this report the authors discuss about the nuances of the surgical procedure, tips and tricks to provide a comprehensive insight and better understanding.

Keywords: MIS-TLIF, Minimally invasive spine surgery, Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

References

1. Stonecipher T, Wright S (1989) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with facet screw fixation. Spine 14:468–47.
2. Fraser RD (1995) Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions. Spine 20:S167–S177.
3. Harms J, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–99.
4. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 15(suppl):26–35.
5. Jin-Tao Q, Yu T, MeiW, et al. Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/ TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1058-1065.
6. Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, Venable GT, Rossi NB, Foley KT. Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and metaanalysis. Neurosurgery. 2015;77:847-874.
7. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:479-484.
8. Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop. 2014;38:817-824.
9. Kulkarni AG, Patel RS, Dutta S. Does minimally invasive spine surgery minimize surgical site infections? Asian Spine J. 2016;10: 1000-1006.
10. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC. The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:712-6.
11. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: Percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:123-9.
12. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620.
13. Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX (2011) Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl) 124:3868–3874.
14. Kim CW, Lee YP, Taylor W, Oygar A, Kim WK (2008) Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine J 8:584–590.
15. Tjardes T, Shafizadeh S, Rixen D, Paffrath T, Bouillon B, Steinhausen ES, Baethis H (2010) Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19:25–45.

How to Cite this Article: Asati S, Raut S, Kundnani V, Chugh A, Rangekar A, Goparaju P VNR | Minimally Invasive Trans-foraminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): Technique, Tips and Tricks. | Back Bone: The Spine Journal | October 2021-March 2022; 2(2): 60-64.

 

(Abstract Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

.