Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery compared with thoracotomy: early and late follow-up of radiographical and functional outcome.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is a new technique that allows for access to anterior spinal pathology using a minimally invasive approach. Proponents of this procedure argue that anterior thoracic spine surgery can be performed with the same accuracy and completeness as is possible by the conventional open approach but through much smaller skin and muscle incisions. Advantages of VATS include decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and improved cosmesis. PURPOSE: To detect if VATS is equally as effective as open thoracotomy, both combined with instrumented posterior spinal fusion, with respect to fusion rate, percent curve correction, and functional outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case control. PATIENT SAMPLE: Seventeen patients underwent VATS/instrumented posterior spinal fusion for thoracic curvatures exceeding 50 degrees . A control cohort of patients that were age matched, sex matched, and curve magnitude matched underwent open thoracotomy/instrumented posterior spinal fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of curve correction, fusion rate, intraoperative and postoperative clinical parameters, and functional outcome scores. METHODS: Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were analyzed to calculate the percentage of major curve correction in the coronal and sagittal planes as well as the rate of fusion. In addition, operative reports and medical records were analyzed for the following outcomes: estimated operative blood loss, length of surgery, chest tube output, length of hospitalization, and complications. Average follow-up time was 26 months in the VATS group and 27 months in the thoracotomy group. Finally, functional outcome was assessed using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring system. RESULTS: The VATS group (mean age, 30) averaged 5.4 anterior levels and 11 posterior levels fused. The thoracotomy group (mean age, 32) averaged 5.8 anterior levels and 12 posterior levels fused. Estimated blood loss was nearly identical for the posterior procedures in both groups, whereas the anterior blood loss was significantly higher in the thoracotomy group as compared with the VATS group (541 cc vs. 288 cc). Operative time did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. Percent curve correction immediately postoperative (52% correction VATS; 51% correction thoracotomy) as well as at the 2-year follow-up (50% VATS and 54% thoracotomy) was nearly identical. There was no difference in postoperative ODI (p=.6) or SRS scores (p=.5) between groups. Complications were frequent but not significantly different between the two groups (p=.3). CONCLUSION: VATS is equally effective as thoracotomy with respect to fusion rate, major curve correction, and functional outcome scores. Although a decrease in operative blood loss was seen in the VATS patients, this was not clinically significant.
