Microscopic Minimal Invasive Resection of Spinal Tumor with Tubular Retractor System: Case Studies of 70 Patients with Literature Review

Abstract

Objective

Minimal invasive spine surgery with tubular retractor system avoids contralateral laminectomy, minimizes manipulation of midline supportive structures, and reduces surgical morbidity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of microscopic minimal invasive tubular retractor system for intradural spinal tumor resection.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was performed in 70 patients who were admitted between January 2017 and January 2024 with intradural spinal tumors and underwent excision with microscopic minimal invasive tubular retractor system. Patient's data including age, sex, clinical symptoms, and magnetic resonance imaging were collected. The extent of resection, surgical complications, estimated blood loss, estimated surgical time, and neurological outcomes were recorded. The neurological assessment was done by the modified McCormick grading scale pre- and postoperatively.

Results

Out of 70 patients, there were 38 (54.28%) males and 32 (45.71%) females, with a mean age of 45.16 (range: 8–79) years. The histology of these cases was meningioma (34.28%), schwannoma (51.42%), astrocytoma (2.85%), ependymoma (2.85%), and neurofibroma (8.57%). The average volume of tumors was 1.98 cm³, and gross total resection was achieved in 64 (91.53%) cases and subtotal resection was achieved in 6 (8.57%) cases. One patient had neurological deterioration, which was improved on follow-up after 6 months, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage was noted in one case, which recovered after keeping lumbar drain for 5 days. No permanent neurological deficits were observed compared with their preoperative status, with improvement noted in visual analog scale and modified McCormick grade in all cases in the long-term follow-up evaluation (6–24 months).

Conclusion

Microscopic minimal invasive resection of intradural spinal tumor by the tubular retractor system is safe and effective with excellent neurological improvement as well as better resection rate, short hospital stay, and less surgical complication.

Keywords

minimal invasive - tubular retractor - intradural spinal tumor - excision - outcome

Authors' Contributions

M.K. conceived and designed the study, and contributed to data collection and manuscript writing and drafting of the manuscript. R.P., M.V., G.R., Y.S.B., H.C., and D.N. were responsible for editing and providing technical feedback with design and analyses.

Ethical Approval

This is a retrospective study, so informed consent was taken from the involved participants in this study. This study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the Max Super Speciality Hospital.

Patients' Consent

We declare that all patients involved in the study signed an informed consent approving that they agree to share their medical data in any research work and to be published.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. April 2025

• References

• 1 Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN, Fessler RG. A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques. Spine 2009; 34 (01) 17-23
• 2 Newton HB, Newton CL, Gatens C, Hebert R, Pack R. Spinal cord tumors: review of etiology, diagnosis, and multidisciplinary approach to treatment. Cancer Pract 1995; 3 (04) 207-218
• 3 Traul DE, Shaffrey ME, Schiff D. Part I: spinal-cord neoplasms-intradural neoplasms. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8 (01) 35-45
• 4 Thavara BD, Kidangan GS, Rajagopalawarrier B. Analysis of the surgical technique and outcome of the thoracic and lumbar intradural spinal tumor excision using minimally invasive tubular retractor system. Asian J Neurosurg 2019; 14 (02) 453-460
• 5 Gonçalves VM, Santiago B, Ferreira VC, Sá MCE. Minimally invasive resection of an extradural far lateral lumbar schwannoma with zygapophyseal joint sparing: surgical nuances and literature review. Case Rep Med 2014; 2014: 739862
• 6 KrishnanKutty R, Sreemathyamma SB, Sivanandapanicker JL, Asher P, Prabhakar RB, Peethambaran A. Hemilaminectomy for spinal cord intradural tumors: an institutional experience. Asian J Neurosurg 2018; 13 (03) 760-765
• 7 Lee S, Srikantha U. Surgical management of giant lumbar extradural schwannoma: report of 3 cases. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 18
• 8 Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 12 (06) 694-699
• 9 McCormick PC, Torres R, Post KD, Stein BM. Intramedullary ependymoma of the spinal cord. J Neurosurg 1990; 72 (04) 523-532
• 10 Tredway TL, Santiago P, Hrubes MR, Song JK, Christie SD, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive resection of intradural-extramedullary spinal neoplasms. Neurosurgery 2006; 58 (1, suppl): ONS52-ONS58 , discussion ONS52–ONS58
• 11 Seppälä MT, Haltia MJ, Sankila RJ, Jääskeläinen JE, Heiskanen O. Long-term outcome after removal of spinal schwannoma: a clinicopathological study of 187 cases. J Neurosurg 1995; 83 (04) 621-626
• 12 Sridhar K, Ramamurthi R, Vasudevan MC, Ramamurthi B. Limited unilateral approach for extramedullary spinal tumours. Br J Neurosurg 1998; 12 (05) 430-433
• 13 Yasuoka S, Peterson HA, MacCarty CS. Incidence of spinal column deformity after multilevel laminectomy in children and adults. J Neurosurg 1982; 57 (04) 441-445
• 14 Jinnai T, Koyama T. Clinical characteristics of spinal nerve sheath tumors: analysis of 149 cases. Neurosurgery 2005; 56 (03) 510-515 , discussion 510–515
• 15 Chiou SM, Eggert HR, Laborde G, Seeger W. Microsurgical unilateral approaches for spinal tumour surgery: eight years' experience in 256 primary operated patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1989; 100 (3–4): 127-133
• 16 Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Nonexpandable tubular retractors and spinal tumors. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20 (06) 769-770
• 17 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 (06) 708-715
• 18 Mannion RJ, Nowitzke AM, Efendy J, Wood MJ. Safety and efficacy of intradural extramedullary spinal tumor removal using a minimally invasive approach. Neurosurgery 2011; 68 (1, suppl operative): 208-216 , discussion 216
• 19 Ogden AT, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive resection of intramedullary ependymoma: case report. Neurosurgery 2009; 65 (06) E1203-E1204 , discussion E1204
• 20 Pham MH, Chang KE, Liu JC, Hsieh PC. Minimally invasive surgery for intradural extramedullary spinal tumors: a comprehensive review with illustrative clinical cases. World Spinal Column J 2016; 7 (02) 84-96
• 21 Yu B, Xiao Y, Dai H, Yu Y, Lin Y, Xu J. Spinal intradural extramedullary tumors: microscopic keyhole resection with the focus on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring and long-term outcome. J Orthop Surg Res 2023; 18 (01) 598
• 22 Wong AP, Lall RR, Dahdaleh NS. et al. Comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for intradural-extramedullary spine tumors. Neurosurg Focus 2015; 39 (02) E11
• 23 Parlak A, Oppong MD, Jabbarli R. et al. Do tumour size, type and localisation affect resection rate in patients with spinal schwannoma?. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022; 58 (03) 357
• 24 Argiti K, Watzlawick R, Hohenhaus M. et al. Minimally invasive tubular removal of spinal schwannoma and neurofibroma: a case series of 49 patients and review of the literature. Neurosurg Rev 2024; 47 (01) 418
• 25 Xu J, Liu CH, Lin Y, Luo FQ. Microscopic minimally invasive keyhole technique for surgical resection of spinal dumbbell tumors. World Neurosurg 2018; 109: e110-e117