These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus open surgical resection for spinal osteoid osteoma.
    Author: Yu X, Wang B, Yang S, Han S, Jiang L, Liu X, Wei F, Wu F, Dang L, Liu Z.
    Journal: Spine J; 2019 Mar; 19(3):509-515. PubMed ID: 30053519.
    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 OSR 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 RFA group and cervical in 12, thoracic in 1, and lumber in 3 in the OSR group. RFA showed shorter operating time, less blood loss, and less in-hospital stay than open surgery [105.0 ± 33.8 minutes vs. 186.4 ± 53.5 minutes (p < .001), 1 (0 to 5) ml vs. 125 (30-1200) ml (p < .001) and 1 (1-3) days vs. 6 (3-10) days (p < .001), respectively]. At last follow-up, one patient underwent a secondary RFA for recurrence. VAS improvement was 7.5 (3-10) and 6.5 (4-9) (p = .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 compared to OSR. However, OSR is still recommended in cases with spinal cord/nerve root compression.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]