Minimally invasive thoracoscopic approach for anterior decompression and stabilization of metastatic spine disease

Journal ArticleObject. The choices available in the management of metastatic spine disease are complex, and the role of surgical therapy is increasing. Recent studies have indicated that patients treated with direct surgical decompression and stabilization before radiation have better functional outcomes than those treated with radiation alone. The most common anterior surgical approach for direct spinal cord decompression and stabilization in the thoracic spine is open thoracotomy; however, thoracotomy for spinal access is associated with morbidity that can be avoided with minimally invasive techniques like thoracoscopy. Methods. A minimally invasive thoracoscopic approach was used for the surgical treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar metastatic spinal cord compression. This technique allows ventral decompression via corpectomy, interbody reconstruction with expandable cages, and stabilization with an anterolateral plating system designed specifically for minimally invasive implantation. This technique was performed in 5 patients with metastatic disease of the thoracic spine, including the thoracolumbar junction. Results. All patients had improvement in preoperative symptoms and neurological deficits. No complications occurred in this small series. Conclusions. The minimally invasive thoracoscopic approach can be applied to the treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar metastatic spine disease in an effort to reduce access morbidity. Preliminary results have indicated that adequate decompression, reconstruction, and stabilization can be achieved with this technique

Hybrid endoscopic thymectomy : combined transesophageal and transthoracic approach in a survival porcine model with cadaver assessment

BACKGROUND: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery thymectomy has been used in the treatment of Myastenia Gravis and thymomas (coexisting or not). In natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, new approaches to the thorax are emerging as alternatives to the classic transthoracic endoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and reliability of hybrid endoscopic thymectomy (HET) using a combined transthoracic and transesophageal approach. METHODS: Twelve consecutive in vivo experiments were undertaken in the porcine model (4 acute and 8 survival). The same procedure was assessed in a human cadaver afterward. For HET, an 11-mm trocar was inserted in the 2nd intercostal space in the left anterior axillary line. A 0° 10-mm thoracoscope with a 5-mm working channel was introduced. Transesophageal access was created through a submucosal tunnel using a flexible gastroscope with a single working channel introduced through the mouth. Using both flexible (gastroscope) and rigid (thoracoscope) instruments, the mediastinum was opened; the thymus was dissected, and the vessels were ligated using electrocautery alone. RESULTS: Submucosal tunnel creation and esophagotomy were performed safely without incidents in all animals. Complete thymectomy was achieved in all experiments. All animals in the survival group lived for 14 days. Thoracoscopic and postmortem examination revealed pleural adhesions on site of the surgical procedure with no signs of infection. Histological analysis of the proximal third of the esophagus revealed complete cicatrization of both mucosal defect and myotomy site. In the human cadaver, we were able to replicate all the procedure even though we were not able to identify the thymus. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid endoscopic thymectomy is feasible and reliable. HET could be regarded as a possible alternative to classic thoracoscopic approach for patients requiring thymectomy.This project was funded by the FCT Grants project PTDC/SAU-OSM/105578/2008

Cirurgias endoscópicas para a coluna torácica: avaliação crítica Endoscopic surgery for thoracic spine: critical review

Com o advento da tecnologia vídeo-assistida a endoscopia tem assumido importante papel terapêutico na cavidade torácica. Este artigo é uma avaliação crítica da literatura e tem como objetivo demonstrar o estado atual da cirurgia endoscópica direcionada para a coluna torácica. Hérnias discais, deformidades, infecções, tumores, doenças congênitas e traumatismos estão sendo tratados por técnica endoscópica. Na literatura, as vantagens sobre a toracotomia aberta são visibilidade aumentada e reduções em: tempo de recuperação, perda sanguínea, custos, índice de infecção e morbidade pós-operatória. Algumas desvantagens são: intubação seletiva, significativa curva de aprendizado, dificuldades técnicas na operação de crianças muito pequenas, reparação da dura máter e instrumentação. Embora os benefícios sejam aparentemente claros e haja pronunciado grau de entusiasmo, os autores são cautelosos em afirmar que a toracoscopia já é uma alternativa definitiva à toracotomia convencional. A comparação dos resultados entre as técnicas endoscópica e aberta é dificultada pela escassez de estudos comparativos. Os autores, embora otimistas, recomendam análises de mais estudos prospectivos, multicêntricos e randomizados para uma conclusão definitiva.<br>After the development of video-assisted technology, endoscopic techniques have assumed an important therapeutic role into thoracic cavity. This is a literature review article to show the current state of the endoscopy for thoracic spine. Disc herniations, deformities, infections, tumors, congenital disorders and traumatic events have been treated by endoscopic techniques. On reviewing the literature, the advantages over open approaches are: enhanced visualization, shorter recovery time and decreased blood loss, costs, infection rate and post operative morbidity. Some disadvantages are: one lung anesthesia, significant learning curve, and technical problems in operating on small children, repairing the dura and performing instrumentation. Overall benefits are apparently clear. However, despite the high degree of enthusiasm, authors are cautious to state that endoscopic techniques to the spine already represent a definitive alternative to standard techniques. Comparison between endoscopic and open approaches are still difficult because of the lack of appropriate comparative studies. Authors, although optimistic recommend more prospective, multicentric and randomized studies in order to stand a definitive conclusion