• Arnaud Dubory, Gilles Missenard, Benoît Lambert, and Charles Court.
• *Orthopaedic Department, Tumor and Spine Unit, Bicêtre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, JE 2494 Univ Paris-Sud Orsay, F-01405, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre 94270, France; and †General Surgery Department, Bicêtre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, JE 2494 Univ Paris-Sud Orsay, F-01405, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre 94270, France.
• Spine. 2015 Oct 1; 40 (19): 1542-52.

Study DesignRetrospective case-control study.ObjectiveTo compare laparoscopy with open median laparotomy for anterior approach in "en bloc" resection of primary malignant sacral tumors (PMST) in combined approach strategy.Summary Of Background DataWide margin surgical resection is the "gold standard" treatment of PMST.MethodsTwo groups of patients suffering from PMST and operated for "en bloc" resection by combined approach (anterior and posterior) only differencing for the anterior approach were constituted: "laparoscopy" group (n = 11) and "laparotomy" group (n = 22). Intraoperative morbidity (blood loss, red blood cell transfusion (RBC transfusion), surgical procedure duration) and postoperative morbidity (surgical-site infection (SSI), perineal dysfunctions, local recurrence) were analyzed. Surgical margins were studied. Data of both groups were compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney test for continuous data and Fisher test for categorical data. Overall survival (OS) and Disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsBlood loss during anterior approach was less important in "laparoscopy" group 71.9 mL (range 0-400 mL) as compared with 2140 mL (range 0-9000 mL) for "laparotomy" group (P = 0.019). Blood loss during posterior approach was not different between the 2 groups. Total blood loss including anterior and posterior approach was inferior in "laparoscopy" group 2208 mL (range 230-4800 mL) versus 5385.7 mL (range 1400-11500 mL) for "laparotomy" group (P = 0.026). We reported significant difference on blood transfusion (3.7 RBC transfusions (range 0-8) for "laparoscopy group" versus 10.1 RBC transfusions (range 0-35) for "laparotomy" group (P = 0.025)). Surgical duration, quality of surgical margins, perineal dysfunctions and SSI were equivalent for both groups. At a follow-up of 36.6 months for "laparoscopy" group and 115.3 months for "laparotomy" group, OS and DFS were equivalent.ConclusionUse of laparoscopy for anterior approach decreases intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative RBC transfusion without increasing surgical duration, without altering the quality of surgical margins and without impairing long-term outcomes.Level Of Evidence4.

25 keywords...

hide…