Open sequential, open staged, and laparoscopic-assisted approaches
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20234042Keywords:
Sacrectomy, Laparoscopic assisted sacrectomy, Staged sacrectomy, Sequential sacrectomyAbstract
Background: This retrospective study evaluates sacrectomy techniques and associated outcomes in 32 patients at our department. Sacrectomy, challenging due to complex anatomy and vascularization, has evolved from open single-stage abdomino-sacral to a staged approach and laparoscopic-assisted methods.
Methods: We examined total, subtotal, and partial sacrectomies, transitioning from a single-stage to a staged procedure (with a 1-2 day gap) and finally to laparoscopic-assisted sacrectomy. We focused on postoperative morbidity.
Results: Results show 14 partial, 8 subtotal, 8 total, and 2 laparoscopic-assisted partial sacrectomies. Giant cell tumors and chordomas were common. The staged approach was used in 16 patients, the sequential in 12, and laparoscopic in 2. The latter, despite longer surgery times, resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, less pain, and faster recovery. Wound dehiscence was the main complication, typically managed conservatively or with skin grafts. One case required a gluteal flap. Bowel and bladder dysfunctions, mostly following total and subtotal sacrectomies, improved with conservative management. The staged approach showed reduced morbidity compared to the sequential.
Conclusions: In conclusion, sacrectomy has become less morbid due to improved anatomical understanding, surgical advancements, and rehabilitation. Staged sacrectomy reduces peri-operative morbidity versus the sequential method. Laparoscopic-assisted sacrectomy, promising reduced blood loss, pain, and hospitalization, requires careful patient selection.
References
Fourney DR, Rhines LD, Hentschel SJ, Skibber JM, Wolinsky JP, Weber KL, et al. En bloc resection of primary sacral tumors: classification of surgical approaches and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3:111-22.
Balaparameswara Rao SJ, Bhaliya H, Parthiban JKBC. Lumbar intramedullary epidermoid following repair of sacral myelomeningocele and tethered cord: a case report with a review of the relevant literature and operative nuances. Neurospine. 2019;16:373-7.
Wei G, Xiaodong T, Yi Y, Ji T. Strategy of surgical treatment of sacral neurogenic tumors. Spine. 2009;34:2587-92.
Sun W, Ma XJ, Zhang F, Miao WL, Wang CR, Cai ZD. Surgical treatment of sacral neurogenic tumor: a 10-year experience with 64 cases. Orthop Surg. 2016;8:162-70.
Watkins III RG, Watkins IV RG. Surgical approaches to the spine. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2015.
Dubory A, Missenard G, Lambert B, Court C. Interest of laparoscopy for “en bloc” resection of primary malignant sacral tumors by combined approach: comparative study with open median laparotomy. Spine. 2015;40:1542-52.
Freitas B, Figueiredo R, Carrerette F, Acioly MA. Retroperitoneoscopic resection of a lumbosacral plexus schwannoma: case report and literature review. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018;79:262-7.
Kim KR, Kim KH, Park JY, Shin DA, Ha Y, Kim KN, et al. Surgical strategy for sacral tumor resection. Yonsei Med J. 2021;62(1):59.
van Wulfften Palthe OD, Tromp I, Ferreira A, Fiore A, Bramer JA, van Dijk NC, et al. Sacral chordoma: a clinical review of 101 cases with 30-year experience in a single institution. Spine J. 2019;19(5):869-79.
Silva MB, Martins SC, Garofo KV, Hanasilo CE, Etchebehere M. Analysis of morbidity and mortality in patients with primary bone tumors who underwent sacrectomy: A systematic review. J Bone Oncol. 2022;23:100445.
Verlaan JJ, Kuperus JS, Slooff WB, Oner FC. Complications, secondary interventions and long-term morbidity after en bloc sacrectomy. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2209-19.
Dang X, Lian L, Wu D. Prognosis and risk factors influencing recurrence in surgery-treated patients with primary sacral tumors. Iran J Public Health. 2017;46:1079-85.
