椎板切除后椎板再植治疗椎管内肿瘤的预后影响因素分析
Analysis of Prognostic Factors Affecting the Treatment of Intraspinal Tumors after Laminectomy Followed by Laminar Reimplantation
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2024.143744, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 38  浏览: 71 
作者: 罗 昊*, 赵永华:青岛大学附属医院,脊柱外科,山东 青岛
关键词: 椎管内肿瘤椎板再植术临床预后影响因素Intraspinal Tumor Laminar Replantation Clinical Prognosis Influencing Factor
摘要: 介绍:椎管内肿瘤是脊柱外科的常见疾病。由于多数肿瘤是良性的,手术切除是治疗的有效手段,也是这些肿瘤的主要治疗方法。传统椎板切除术后需要椎弓根螺钉固定,此种手术方式虽然保持了脊柱的稳定性并降低了后凸的发生率,但有许多并发症。近年来,肿瘤切除术后椎板再植越来越受到临床医生的青睐,但此种手术方式的临床预后各有差异。本文就以此来探讨影响椎板切除后椎板再植术后临床预后的相关因素,来提高临床疗效,以获得更好的临床指导。材料和方法:本研究对2018年1月至2023年5月在我院脊柱外科进行椎板切除后椎板再植手术患者100例进行回顾性分析。根据术前、术后日本骨科协会(JOA)评分改善率(治疗后评分改善率 = [(治疗后评分 − 治疗前评分)/17(29) − 治疗前评分] × 100%)分为有效组和无效组(改善率为100%时为治愈,改善率大于60%为显效,25%~60%为有效,小于25%为无效;25%~100%为有效组,小于25%为无效组)。对两组的年龄、性别、身高、体重、吸烟饮酒状况、高血压病史、糖尿病病史、病程时长、肿瘤节段、肿瘤位置、肿瘤大小、肿瘤病理性质、手术时间、术中出血量、肿瘤切除情况、术中应用人工硬脊膜情况、术后激素应用情况、术后并发症、术前JOA评分等数据进行汇总、计算和比较,统计学方法是首先对所有指标采用单因素分析,再将单因素分析中有统计学意义的指标进行多因素Logistic回归分析。结果:1) 单因素分析显示患者的年龄、性别、身高、体重、吸烟饮酒状况、高血压病史、糖尿病病史、病程时长、肿瘤大小、手术时间、术中出血量、肿瘤切除情况、术中应用人工硬膜情况、术后激素应用情况、术后并发症结果无统计学意义,而肿瘤节段、肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质、术前JOA评分在两组间比较有统计学意义。2) 多因素分析显示肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质、术前JOA评分在两组间比较有统计学意义,而肿瘤节段在两组间比较无统计学意义。结论:经研究显示,肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质、术前JOA评分是椎管内肿瘤行椎板切除后椎板再植术后临床预后的独立危险因素。
Abstract: Introduction: Intraspinal tumor is a common disease in spinal surgery. Since most tumors are be-nign, surgical resection is an effective means of treatment and the main treatment for these tumors. Traditional laminectomy requires pedicle screw fixation, which maintains spinal stability and re-duces the incidence of kyphosis, but has many complications. In recent years, laminectomy after tumor resection has become more and more popular among clinicians, but the clinical prognosis of this type of surgery is varied. In this paper, the relevant factors affecting the clinical prognosis after laminectomy and laminectomy were discussed in order to improve the clinical efficacy and obtain better clinical guidance. Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 100 patients who underwent laminectomy and laminectomy after laminectomy in the Department of Spinal Surgery of our hospital from January 2018 to May 2023. According to the improvement rate of Jap-anese Orthopedic Association (JOA) before and after surgery (improvement rate after treatment = [(post-treatment score − pre-treatment score)/17(29) − pre-treatment score] × 100%), the effec-tive group and the ineffective group were divided into two groups (the improvement rate was 100% as cure, the improvement rate was greater than 60% as obvious effect, and 25%~60% as effective. Less than 25% is invalid; 25%~100% is valid group, less than 25% is invalid group). Age, sex, height, weight, smoking and drinking status, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, disease duration, tumor segment, tumor location, tumor size, tumor pathological nature, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, tumor resection, intraoperative application of artificial dural, postopera-tive hormone application, postoperative complications, preoperative JOA score and other data of the two groups were summarized Calculate and compare. The statistical method is to first use unifactor analysis for all indicators, and then carry out multivariate Logistic regression analysis for indicators with statistical significance in the unifactor analysis. Results: 1) Univariate analysis showed no sta-tistical significance in age, gender, height, weight, smoking and drinking status, history of hyper-tension, history of diabetes, duration of disease, tumor size, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, tumor resection, intraoperative application of artificial dural, postoperative hormone applica-tion, and postoperative complications. The tumor segment, tumor location, tumor pathology and preoperative JOA score were statistically significant between the two groups. 2) Multivariate analy-sis showed that the tumor location, pathological nature and preoperative JOA score were statisti-cally significant between the two groups, while the tumor segment was not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: Tumor location, pathological nature and preoperative JOA score are independent risk factors for prognosis after laminectomy and laminectomy for intraspinal tumors.
文章引用:罗昊, 赵永华. 椎板切除后椎板再植治疗椎管内肿瘤的预后影响因素分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(3): 591-599. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.143744

1. 引言

椎管内肿瘤是神经外科和脊柱外科常见的疾病。椎管内肿瘤占中枢神经系统肿瘤10%~15% [1] ,其中尤以神经鞘瘤以及脊膜瘤最为多见 [2] [3] ,大多数发生在胸椎、腰椎和胸腰椎节段。髓外肿瘤占椎管内肿瘤的三分之二 [4] 。根据肿瘤在肿瘤所处的位置可以分为三类:椎管内硬膜外肿瘤、髓外硬膜下肿瘤和髓内肿瘤。虽然不同部位的肿瘤会有不同的特征,但它们都会对患者造成不同程度的神经功能损伤,临床表现以感觉或运动功能障碍、自主神经功能改变等为主。在疾病早期,部分患者可能无明显症状甚至无症状。随着疾病的发展,肿瘤向外生长会受到周围骨性结构的限制,只能向中央压迫脊髓或神经根,从而引起神经功能障碍。这可能导致大小便障碍,甚至截瘫等严重后果,严重影响患者的日常生活质量。随着磁共振在临床的推广,大幅提高椎管内肿瘤的早期诊断准确率,并且相较于其他诊断方法准确性更高。由于大多数肿瘤都是良性的,手术切除通常是有效的,也是治疗这种疾病的主要方法。治疗椎管内肿瘤的基本原则是尽可能完全切除肿瘤,并尽可能保护脊柱的稳定性。脊柱肿瘤的安全切除取决于肿瘤及其周围结构的完全暴露 [5] ,这需要在手术时切除部分(甚至全部)椎板,以获得足够的手术视野和空间。脊柱三柱理论的提出使我们从更深层次理解脊柱稳定性 [6] 。目前已达成的共识是最大限度地减少对脊柱原始结构的损伤并恢复脊柱的稳定性。然而,椎板切除术破坏了椎体的后柱结构,并在一定程度上影响了脊柱的生物力学稳定性。从长远来看,这可能导致延迟性后凸和神经损伤,从而严重影响患者的生活质量 [7] [8] 。Raimondi首次报道将椎板再植用于临床治疗 [9] 。此外,各种椎板成形术已被用于治疗椎管内肿瘤患者,具有良好的术后效果 [10] [11] [12] 。但在临床工作中,由于个体差异性,每个患者椎板切除后椎板再植手术的预后也有所差异,有相关报道称椎管内肿瘤患者仍有部分预后不佳 [13] 。本文通过收集分析此类病例数据,了解与预后相关的因素,以获得更好的临床指导。

2. 材料与方法

2.1. 一般信息

本研究采用回顾性分析方法,选择了2018年1月至2023年5月在我院脊柱外科进行椎板切除后椎板再植手术的136名患者,根据纳入排除标准筛选,最终纳入研究的患者100例。采用以下纳入标准:(1) 我院脊柱外科行椎板切除后椎板再植手术;(2) 患者临床及随访资料完整;(3) 患者第一次接受脊柱手术;(4) 经影像学及病理学证实为椎管内肿瘤患者。排除标准如下:(1) 因各种原因临床及随访资料不完整的患者;(2) 复发性椎管内肿瘤;(3) 转移性椎管内肿瘤;(4) 患者合并复合性外伤、其他恶性肿瘤、恶病质等情况。

2.2. 分组标准

对纳入研究的所有患者进行术前、术后JOA评分,肿瘤位于颈椎利用颈椎JOA评分,肿瘤位于胸椎及腰骶椎利用腰椎JOA评分;根据治疗后评分改善率分为有效组(对照组)和无效组(研究组):改善率大于等于25%为有效组,小于25%为无效组。

2.3. 统计学方法

应用SPSS29.0软件,两组之间的计量资料中符合正态分布的测量数据表示为平均值 ± 标准差,运用独立样本T检验,偏态分布资料以平均值±标准差表示,运用非参数秩和检验。计数数据采用卡方检验进行分析,p < 0.05具有统计学意义。检验水准α = 0.05,将单因素分析统计上有统计学差异的数据再进行多因素Logistic回归分析,从而得出可能影响椎板切除后椎板再植术后临床预后的因素。

3. 结果

3.1. 患者一般资料分析

纳入研究的100例患者中,两组患者的性别、年龄、身高、体重、吸烟及饮酒状况(见表1)。性别(有效组:40男44女;无效组:9男7女;p = 0.527)、年龄(有效组:49.40 ± 15.50岁;无效组:67.44 ± 12.09岁;p = 0.197)、身高(有效组:168.60 ± 7.30厘米;无效组:166.69 ± 6.56厘米;p = 0.471)、体重(有效组:68.83 ± 10.87千克;无效组:69.94 ± 12.76千克;p = 0.571)、吸烟情况(有效组:15名吸烟患者和69名不吸烟患者;无效组:4名吸烟患者和12名不吸烟患者;p = 0.749)和饮酒情况(有效组:9名饮酒患者和75名不饮酒患者;无效组:4名饮酒患者和12名不饮酒患者;p = 0.249)无统计学意义。

Table 1. Comparison of the general data between the two groups

表1. 两组一般资料的单因素分析

*两组比较后的结果具有统计学意义的p值,p < 0.05具有统计学意义。

3.2. 患者病史相关资料分析

两组患者的高血压患病情况、糖尿病患病情况、病程长短、术前JOA评分(见表2)。高血压患病情况(有效组:18名高血压患病者和66名非高血压患病者;无效组:6名高血压患病者和10名非高血压患病者,p = 0.289)、糖尿病患病情况(有效组:7名糖尿病患病者和77名非糖尿病患病者;无效组:2名糖尿病患病者和14名非糖尿病患病者,p = 0.954)、病程长短(有效组:>3个月49名患者,≤3个月35名患者;无效组:>3个月10名患者,≤3个月6名患者,p = 0.756)、术前JOA评分(有效组:21.54 ± 3.72;无效组:17.50 ± 3.10,p < 0.001)。两组患者的高血压、糖尿病患病情况、病程长短无统计学意义,两组患者术前JOA评分有统计学意义。

3.3. 肿瘤及手术相关资料分析

两组患者的肿瘤节段、肿瘤大小、肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质、肿瘤切除情况、术中应用人工硬脊膜情况、术后激素应用情况、术后并发症、手术时间、术中出血量(见表3)。术后并发症定义为:术后脑脊液漏、医源性椎管狭窄、术后软组织粘连。肿瘤节段(有效组:颈段10名、胸段38名、腰段36名;无效组:颈段3名、胸段11名、腰段2名,p = 0.043),肿瘤大小(有效组:>4厘米23名患者,≤4厘米61名患者;无效组:>4厘米3名患者,≤4厘米13名患者,p = 0.681),肿瘤位置(有效组:髓内10名患者,髓外74名患者;无效组:髓内8名患者,髓外8名患者,p = 0.001),肿瘤病理性质(有效组:良性69名患者,恶性15名患者;无效组:良性7名患者,恶性9名患者,p = 0.003),肿瘤切除情况(有效组:全切75名患者,部分切9名患者,无效组:全切15名患者,部分切1名患者,p = 0.928),术中应用人工硬脊膜情况(有效组:应用人工硬脊膜18名患者,未应用人工硬脊膜66名患者;无效组:应用人工硬脊膜3名患者,未应用人工硬脊膜13名患者,p = 1.000),术后激素应用情况(有效组:使用激素67名患者,未使用激素17名患者;无效组:使用激素12名患者,未使用激素4名患者,p = 0.925),术后并发症(有效组:出现并发症29名患者,未出现并发症55名患者;无效组:出现并发症5名患者,未出现并发症11名患者,p = 0.800),手术时间(有效组:2.20 ± 0.84小时;无效组:2.58 ± 1.01小时,p = 0.134),术中出血量(有效组:148.33 ± 122.87毫升;无效组:118.75 ± 106.26毫升,p = 0.244)。肿瘤大小、肿瘤切除情况、术中应用人工硬脊膜情况、术后激素应用情况、术后并发症、手术时间、术中出血量无统计学意义,肿瘤节段、肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质有统计学意义。

Table 2. Comparison of medical history information between the two groups

表2. 两组病史相关资料的单因素分析

*两组比较后的结果具有统计学意义的p值,p < 0.05具有统计学意义。

Table 3. Comparison of the tumor and surgical information between the two groups

表3. 两组肿瘤及手术相关资料单因素分析

*两组比较后的结果具有统计学意义的p值,p < 0.05具有统计学意义。

3.4. 相关因素的多因素分析

通过单因素分析得出,术前JOA评分、肿瘤节段、肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质对椎管内肿瘤椎板再植术后临床预后有相关性且有统计学意义,将有统计学意义的单因素数据进行多因素Logistic回归分析(见表4)。肿瘤节段(p = 0.960)在两组比较中没有统计学差异,术前JOA评分(p = 0.015)、肿瘤位置(p = 0.029)、肿瘤病理性质(p = 0.007)在两组比较中有统计学差异。术前JOA评分、肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质是椎管内肿瘤行椎板切除后椎板再植术后临床预后的独立危险因素。

Table 4. Multifactor analysis of related factors

表4. 相关因素的多因素分析

*两组比较后的结果具有统计学意义的p值,p < 0.05具有统计学意义。

4. 讨论

椎管内肿瘤是神脊柱外科临床常见疾病之一。病因尚不明确,认为与遗传因素、环境、外伤等有关。成年人的大多数椎管内肿瘤通常是良性肿瘤,根据肿瘤与椎管的位置可以分为硬膜外、髓外硬膜内肿瘤和髓内肿瘤三种类型 [14] ,而脊髓肿瘤中髓外硬膜内肿瘤占三分之二 [15] ,髓外硬膜内肿瘤以神经鞘瘤和脊膜瘤为主,而髓内肿瘤最常见室管膜瘤 [16] ,这些肿瘤可能隐匿性较强,症状不典型,且病情会逐渐加重,如果病情严重,最终可能会导致脊神经根受压,甚至导致瘫痪。目前,手术切除被认为是唯一有效的治疗方法,为了及时缓解脊髓和神经根的压迫,临床上提倡早期诊断并进行完全切除。据报道,脊髓背侧的椎管内肿瘤发生率远高于脊髓腹侧。因此,后入路已成为一种传统的手术入路 [17] 。保证脊柱的稳定性的关键在于脊柱后柱结构的完整性。因此,完全切除椎管内肿瘤并保护脊柱解剖和功能是椎管内肿瘤切除手术的基本原则 [18] 。传统的手术方法是切除病变节段的所有椎板和棘突。这种切除方法使椎旁肌失去了正常的骨附着点,可能会出现一系列相关并发症:脊柱不稳定、后凸和症状性硬膜外瘢痕形成。其中,脊柱后凸是最常见的并发症,尤其是颈部椎管内肿瘤患者 [19] [20] 。

近年来,椎板切除后椎板再植成形术作为一种新技术,越来越受到临床医生的关注 [21] 。脊柱受到各种载荷条件的影响,其中关节运动起着至关重要的作用。一个节段的运动并不是独立的,而是对应多个节段的相互运动,这是理解骨骼、韧带和椎间盘之间相互作用的必要前提。脊髓和神经根的减压通常需要去除一些维持脊柱稳定性的结构,如椎板,这会改变相邻节段的生物力学。椎板再植手术的优点在于能够保留棘突韧带复合体,从而保持脊柱的后张力,减少后凸的发生,减少相邻节段的退变,引起相邻节段退变,包括椎间盘突出、椎管狭窄和骨赘形成。此外,硬膜囊受到骨骼的保护,可以减少疤痕的形成,防止医源性椎管狭窄,并维持脊柱运动段的功能,符合非融合手术的理念 [22] 。由于椎板再植后椎管内的软组织受到保护,椎管与后部肌肉分离,以减少刺激和粘连。许多关于预防术后硬膜外粘连的研究,如使用羊膜、硅膜和水凝胶,以及滴注激素和抗炎药,并没有明显的效果 [23] [24] [25] 。椎板再植被认为是一种有效且安全的预防脊柱手术后瘢痕粘连的方法。椎板再植可以防止原位组织伸入椎管,从而避免对脊髓的压迫,降低腰部和腿部的疼痛、麻木等症状的发生,进而降低手术失败和二次手术的风险 [26] [27] 。椎板复合体的原位再植使硬膜切口靠近椎板内表面,最终可以降低脑脊液渗漏的风险 [28] 。

我们的研究结果表明,患者的性别、年龄、身高、体重、吸烟及饮酒状况等一般资料,病程长短、高血压及糖尿病患病情况等病史相关资料,肿瘤节段、肿瘤大小、肿瘤切除情况、术中应用人工硬脊膜情况、术后激素应用情况、术后并发症、手术时间、术中出血量等肿瘤及手术相关资料均不是椎管内肿瘤行椎板切除后椎板再植术后临床预后不佳的危险因素。有相关研究表明年龄是影响椎管内肿瘤患者术后预后的危险因素,随年纪增大预后越差 [29] ,此外,肿瘤大小和病程长短两者具有一定相关性。肿瘤大小会随着病程长短而变化,病程越长肿瘤越大,导致压迫脊髓及脊髓功能损伤严重程度越大,进而导致患者临床预后越差。椎管内肿瘤好发于胸段且胸段椎管内空间狭小,肿瘤容易对脊髓产生严重压迫,致使肿瘤切除难度加大,导致相较其他节段椎管内肿瘤术后预后差。以上因素的统计学结果与预期结果有差异,这可能与个体差别、收集的病例较少以及各因素之间相互影响有关。术前JOA评分、肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质是椎管内肿瘤行椎板切除后椎板再植术后临床预后的危险因素。在椎管内肿瘤中,髓外肿瘤多属于良性肿瘤,髓内肿瘤呈恶性的可能性较髓外肿瘤大,髓内肿瘤与脊髓粘连更紧密,手术切除难度大,容易损伤脊髓,且复发可能性更大,以上这几个方面都可能是导致髓内肿瘤预后差的原因。

5. 结论

椎板切除后椎板再植手术是治疗椎管内肿瘤的优良方法。肿瘤位置、肿瘤病理性质、术前JOA评分是椎管内肿瘤行椎板切除后椎板再植术后临床预后的独立危险因素。

NOTES

*通讯作者Email: lhao8788@163.com

参考文献

[1] Vinken, P. and Bruyn, G. (1968) Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Elsevier, North-Holland.
[2] Ledbetter, L.N. and Leever, J.D. (2019) Imaging of Intraspinal Tumors. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 57, 341-357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2018.09.007
[3] Wu, Y.L., Chang, C.Y., Hsu, S.S., Yip, C.M., Liao, W.C., Chen, J.Y., et al. (2014) Intraspinal Tumors: Analysis of 184 Patients Treated Surgically. Journal of the Chinese Medical Asso-ciation, 77, 626-629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2014.08.002
[4] Bhimani, A.D., Denyer, S., Esfahani, D.R., Zakrzewski, J., Agui-lar, T.M. and Mehta, A.I. (2018) Surgical Complications in Intradural Extramedullary Spinal Cord Tumors—An ACS-NSQIP Analysis of Spinal Cord Level and Malignancy. World Neurosurgery, 117, e290-e299.
[5] Miyakoshi, N., Kudo, D., Hongo, M., Kasukawa, Y., Ishikawa, Y. and Shimada, Y. (2018) Intradural Extramedullary Tumor in the Stenotic Cervical Spine Resected through Open-Door Laminoplasty with Hydroxyapatite Spacers: Report of Two Cases. BMC Surgery, 18, Article No. 38.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-018-0372-9
[6] Denis, F. (1983) The Three Column Spine and Its Significance in the Classification of Acute Thoracolumbar Spinal Injuries. Spine, 8, 817-831.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198311000-00003
[7] Abeloos, L., De Witte, O., Riquet, R., Tuna, T. and Mathieu, N. (2011) Long-Term Outcome of Patients Treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation for Therapeutically Refractory Failed Back Surgerysyndrome: A Retrospective Study. Neurochirurgie, 57, 114-119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2011.07.001
[8] Radu, A.S. (2000) Failed Back Syndrome and Epidural Fbrosis. The Spine Journal, 10, 454-455.
[9] Raimondi, A.J., Gutierrez, F.A. and Di Rocco, C. (1976) Laminotomy and Total Reconstruction of Theposterior Spinal Arch for Spinal Canal Surgery in Childhood. Journal of Neurosurgery, 45, 555-560.
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1976.45.5.0555
[10] Song, Z., Zhang, Z., Ye, Y., Zheng, J. and Wang, F. (2019) Effi-cacy Analysis of Two Surgical Treatments for Thoracic and Lumbar Intraspinal Tumours. BMC Surgery, 19, Article No. 131.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-019-0602-9
[11] Lee, Y.S., Kim, Y.B. and Park, S.W. (2015) Spinous Pro-cess-Splitting Hemilaminoplasty for Intradurland Extradural Lesions. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 58, 494-498.
https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2015.58.5.494
[12] Soto-Hernandez, M., Garcia-Mateos, R., Chavez, R.S.M. and Kite, G. (2010) Surgical Removal of Spinal Mass Lesions with Open Door Laminoplasty. Central European Neu-rosurgery, 71, 213-218.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1249044
[13] Fachrisal Setiawan, E. and Alhuraiby, S.S. (2020) Functional Out-come in Intradural Extramedullary Tumor Patients: Case Series. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 54, 71-73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.04.009
[14] Guarnieri, G., Tecame, M., Izzo, R., Zeccolini, F., Genovese, L. and Muto, M. (2014) Multisegmental Diffuse Intradural Extramedullary Ependymoma: An Extremely Rare Case. The Neuroradiology Journal, 27, 179-185.
https://doi.org/10.15274/NRJ-2014-10018
[15] Beall, D.P., Googe, D.J., Emery, R.L., Thompson, D.B., Campbell, S.E., Ly, J.Q., et al. (2007) Extramedullary Intradural Spinal Tumors: A Pictorial Review. Current Problems in Diag-nostic Radiology, 36, 185-198.
https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2006.12.002
[16] Albanese, V. and Platania, N. (2002) Spinal Intradural Ex-tramedullary Tumors. Personal Experience. Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences, 46, 18-24.
[17] Oral, S., Tumturk, A., Kucuk, A. and Menku, A. (2018) Cervical Hemilaminoplasty with Miniplates in Long Segment Intradural Extramedullary Ependymoma: Case Report and Technical Note. Turkish Neurosurgery, 28, 158-163.
[18] Samartzis, D., Gillis, C.C., Shih, P., O’Toole, J.E. and Fessler, R.G. (2016) Intramedullary Spinal Cord Tumors: Part II-Management Options and Outcomes. Global Spine Journal, 6, 176-185.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1550086
[19] Asthagiri, A.R., Mehta, G.U., Butman, J.A., Baggenstos, M., Oldfield, E.H. and Lonser, R.R. (2011) Longterm Stability after Multilevel Cervical Laminectomy for Spinal Cord Tumor Resection in von Hippel-Lindau Disease. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 14, 444-452.
https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.11.SPINE10429
[20] McGirt, M.J., Garcés-Ambrossi, G.L., Parker, S.L., Sciubba, D.M., Bydon, A., Wolinksy, J.P., Gokaslan, Z.L., Jallo, G. and Witham, T.F. (2010) Short-Term Progressive Spinal Deformity Following Laminoplasty versus Laminectomy for Resection of Intradural Spinal Tumors: Analysis of 238 Patients. Neurosurgery, 66, 1005-1012.
https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000367721.73220.C9
[21] Byvaltsev, V., Polkin, R., Kalinin, A., Kravtsov, M., Belykh, E., Shepelev, V., Satardinova, E., Manukovsky, V. and Riew, K.D. (2023) Laminoplasty versus Laminectomy in the Treatment of Primary Spinal Cord Tumors in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observa-tional Studies. Asian Spine Journal, 17, 595-609.
https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2022.0184
[22] Thakur, N.A. (2014) Laminoplasty: Indication, Techniques, and Com-plications. Seminars in Spine Surgery, 26, 91-99.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semss.2014.05.006
[23] Larocca, H. and Macnab, I. (1974) The Laminectomy Membrane. Studies in Its Evolution, Characteristics, Effects and Prophylaxis in Dogs. The Bone & Joint Journal, 56B, 545-550.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.56B3.545
[24] Winter, R.B. and Hall, J.E. (1978) Kyphosis in Childhood and Adolescence. Spine, 3, 285-308.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-197812000-00001
[25] Yasuoka, S., Peterson, H.A. and MacCarty, C.S. (1982) Incidence of Spinal Column Deformity after Multilevel Laminectomy in Children and Adults. Journal of Neurosurgery, 57, 441-445.
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1982.57.4.0441
[26] Kapural, L., Peterson, E., Provenzano, D.A. and Staats, P. (2017) Clinical Evidence for Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS): Systematic Review. Spine, 42, S61-S66.
https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002213
[27] Yun, S.Y., Kim, D.H., Do, H.Y. and Kim, S.H. (2017) Clinical Insomnia and Associated Factors in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. In-ternational Journal of Medical Sciences, 14, 536-542.
https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.18926
[28] Liu, Z., Zheng, J.H., Yuan, N. and Miao, J. (2023) Comparison of the Clinical Effects of Lamina Replantation and Screw Fixation after Laminectomy in the Treatment of Intraspinal Tumours. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 18, Article No. 617.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04066-z
[29] Samuel, N., Tetreault, L., Santaguida, C., Nater, A., Moayeri, N., Massicotte, E.M., et al. (2016) Clinical and Pathological Outcomes after Resection of Intramedullary Spinal Cord Tumors: Asingle Institution Case Series. Neurosurgical Focus, 41, E8.
https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.5.FOCUS16147