ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical magnitude and learning curve of "second-generation" total en bloc spondylectomy (TES). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: In June 2010, we developed second-generation TES combined with tumor-induced cryoimmunology, which does not require autograft harvesting. METHODS: TES was performed in 63 patients between June 2010 and September 2013. Three groups of patients were evaluated: 20 undergoing surgery in the first year of development of second-generation TES (group I), 20 in the second year (group II), and 23 in the third year (group III). Patient backgrounds showed no remarkable differences. Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and postoperative C-reactive protein and creatine phosphokinase were compared among the groups. RESULTS: Mean±standard deviation operating time was 486±130 minutes in group I, 441±85 minutes in group II, and 396±75 minutes in group III. The time was significantly shorter in group III than in group I (p<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was 901±646 mL in group I, 433±177 mL in group II, and 411±167 mL in group III. Blood loss was significantly lower in groups II and III than in group I (p<0.01). Transfusion was not required in 20 of 23 patients in group III, and mean C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 were significantly lower in this group than in group I (6.12 mg/L vs. 10.07 mg/L; p<0.05). Postoperative creatine phosphokinase levels did not differ among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: TES is associated with a significant learning curve. Thus, second-generation TES can no longer be considered highly invasive.
Subject(s)
Humans , Autografts , Blood Transfusion , C-Reactive Protein , Case-Control Studies , Creatine Kinase , Learning Curve , LearningABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical magnitude and learning curve of "second-generation" total en bloc spondylectomy (TES). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: In June 2010, we developed second-generation TES combined with tumor-induced cryoimmunology, which does not require autograft harvesting. METHODS: TES was performed in 63 patients between June 2010 and September 2013. Three groups of patients were evaluated: 20 undergoing surgery in the first year of development of second-generation TES (group I), 20 in the second year (group II), and 23 in the third year (group III). Patient backgrounds showed no remarkable differences. Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and postoperative C-reactive protein and creatine phosphokinase were compared among the groups. RESULTS: Mean±standard deviation operating time was 486±130 minutes in group I, 441±85 minutes in group II, and 396±75 minutes in group III. The time was significantly shorter in group III than in group I (p<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was 901±646 mL in group I, 433±177 mL in group II, and 411±167 mL in group III. Blood loss was significantly lower in groups II and III than in group I (p<0.01). Transfusion was not required in 20 of 23 patients in group III, and mean C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 were significantly lower in this group than in group I (6.12 mg/L vs. 10.07 mg/L; p<0.05). Postoperative creatine phosphokinase levels did not differ among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: TES is associated with a significant learning curve. Thus, second-generation TES can no longer be considered highly invasive.