Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus open surgical resection for spinal osteoid osteoma

Publication date: Available online 25 July 2018

Source: The Spine Journal

Author(s): Xiang Yu, Ben Wang, ShaoMin Yang, SongBo Han, Liang Jiang, XiaoGuang Liu, Feng Wei, FengLiang Wu, Lei Dang, ZhongJun Liu

Abstract

Background Context

Both open surgical resection (OSR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been reported for spinal osteoid osteoma (OO).

Purpose

To verify the clinical safety and efficiency of RFA with OSR in treating spinal OO.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Patient Sample

Twenty-eight consecutive patients with spinal OO who underwent either RFA or open surgical resection (ORS) in our institute between September 2006 and December 2016.

Outcome Measures

The age, gender, lesion distribution, surgical time, estimated blood loss, complications, local recurrence, visual analogue scale (VAS) and the modified Frankel grade were documented.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 28 patients with spinal OO who had been treated in our hospital from September 2006 to December 2016. Patients were followed at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after the index surgery. The minimum follow-up period was 12 months. This study was funded by Peking University Third Hospital (Y71508-01) (¥ 400,000).

Results

Twelve and 16 patients were treated with CT-guided percutaneous RFA and OSR, respectively. Spinal OO locations were cervical in 4, thoracic in 4, lumbar in 3, and sacral vertebra in 1 in the OSR group and cervical in 12, thoracic in 1, lumber in 3 in the RFA group. RFA showed shorter operating time, less blood loss and less in-hospital stay than open surgery [105.0±33.8min vs 186.4±53.5min (P<0.001), 1 (0-5) ml vs 125 (30-1200) ml (p<0.001) and 1 (1-3) days vs 6 (3-10) days (p<0.001), respectively]. At last follow-up, 1 patient underwent a secondary RFA for recurrence. VAS improvement was 7.5 (3-10) and 6.5 (4-9) (p=0.945) in the RFA and OSR groups, respectively. The overall complication rate was 8.3% (1/12) and 18.8% (3/16) in the RFA and OSR groups, respectively.

Conclusions

If there is sufficient cerebrospinal fluid between the spinal OO lesion and spinal cord/nerve root (more than 1 mm), RFA is effective and safe for treatment of well-selected spinal OO, showing reduced operating time, blood loss, in-hospital stay, and complications, as compared to OSR. However, OSR is still recommended in cases with spinal cord/nerve root compression.

https://ift.tt/2v5li4H