• Michael Schwake, Emanuele Maragno, Marco Gallus, Stephanie Schipmann, Dorothee Spille, Bilal Al Barim, Walter Stummer, and Michael Müther.
• Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 28149 Münster, Germany.
• Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Nov 8; 58 (11).

AbstractBackground and Objectives: Resection of dumbbell tumors can be challenging, and facet joint sparing approaches carry the risk of incomplete resection. In contrast, additional facetectomy may allow better surgical exposure at the cost of spinal stability. The aim of this study is to compare facet-sparing and facetectomy approaches for the treatment of lumbar spine dumbbell tumors. Materials and Methods: In a cohort study setting, we analyzed Eden type 2 and 3 tumors operated in our department. Conventional facet-sparing microsurgical or facetectomy approaches with minimally invasive fusions were performed according to individual surgeons' preference. Primary outcomes were extent of resection and tumor progression over time. Secondary outcomes were perioperative adverse events. Results: Nineteen patients were included. Nine patients were operated on using a facet-sparing technique. Ten patients underwent facetectomy and fusion. While only one patient (11%) in the facet-sparing group experienced gross total resection (GTR), this was achieved for all patients in the facetectomy group (100%). The relative risk (RR) for incomplete resection in the facet-sparing cohort was 18.7 (95% CI 1.23-284.047; p = 0.035). In addition, time to progression was shorter in the facet-sparing cohort (p = 0.022) and all patients with a residual tumor underwent a second resection after a median follow-up time of 42 months (IQR 25-66). Conclusions: Minimally invasive resection of lumbar Eden type 2 and 3 dumbbell tumors including facetectomy in combination with instrumentation appears to be safe and superior to the facet-sparing approach in terms of local tumor control.

12 keywords...

hide…