Comparison of the clinical effects of lamina replantation and screw fixation after laminectomy in the treatment of intraspinal tumours

Abstract

Introduction

Intraspinal tumours are common diseases in neurosurgery and spinal surgery. Due to the fact that most of them are benign tumours, surgical resection is usually effective, and it is also the main treatment for these tumours. To maintain the stability of the spine and to reduce the incidence of kyphosis, pedicle screw fixation is required after traditional laminectomy, but there are many complications. In recent years, tumour resection and laminectomy have become increasingly favoured by clinicians. However, the comparison of the clinical effects of lamina complex replantation and pedicle screw fixation after laminectomy in the treatment of intraspinal tumours is still unknown. This paper systematically compared the two methods from many aspects and discussed their advantages and disadvantages to obtain better clinical guidance.

Materials and methods

In this study, a retrospective analysis was conducted to select 58 patients who underwent posterior approach tumour resection in the spinal surgery department of our hospital from January 2017 to January 2020. Among them, 32 patients underwent tumour resection and laminoplasty, and 26 patients underwent tumour resection and screw internal fixation. The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, duration of symptoms, operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, amount of bleeding and other data were summarized, calculated and compared.

Results

1. The age, sex, BMI, smoking status and symptom duration of the two groups were compared. The abovementioned results were not statistically significant. 2. The operation time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, intraoperative bleeding and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) were counted and compared between the two groups. There was no significant difference in hospital stay or intraoperative bleeding between the two groups; in addition, the operation time, postoperative complications and incidence of ASD were statistically significant. 3. The visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of thoracic and lumbar spines and Neck Disability Index (NDI) score of cervical spine patients in the two groups were counted, and the preoperative and postoperative data, as well as their changes, were counted and compared between groups and within groups. There was no statistical significance between the two groups; moreover, the postoperative scores were all significantly lower than preoperative in the group. 4. According to the spinal cord function ASIA grade, the preoperative, final follow-up and change values of the two groups were counted, and intragroup and intergroup comparisons were made. There was no significant difference between the two groups; in addition, the scores of the final follow-up were significantly higher than preoperative in the group. 5. The spinal mobility was measured and recorded before the operation and at the final follow-up. There was no significant difference between preoperative and postoperative cervical mobility, and there was no statistical significance observed; furthermore, the range of flexion, extension, rotation and lateral bending of the thoracic and lumbar spines in the screw fixation group was significantly lower than that in the lamina replantation group.

Conclusions

Lamina replantation can be used as splendid methods for the treatment of Intraspinal tumour. Lamina replantation can reduce the operation time, as well as reduce the occurrence of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage, iatrogenic spinal stenosis, posterior soft tissue adhesion and ASD. These complications are reduced in comparison to the other mode of management and better preserve the mobility of the spine.