Aims

To report the development of the technique for minimally invasive lumbar decompression using robotic-assisted navigation.

Standard approaches to thoracic intradural tumors often involve a large incision and significant tissue destruction. Minimally invasive techniques have been applied successfully for a variety of surgical decompression procedures, but have rarely been used for the removal of intradural thoracolumbar tumors. Here we compare the clinical outcome of mini-open resection of intradural thoracolumbar tumors to a standard open technique. We retrospectively reviewed our series of twelve mini-open thoracolumbar intradural tumor resection cases and compared the outcome to a profile matched cohort of six cases of open intradural tumor resection cases. Operative statistics, functional outcome, and complications were compared. Tumors were extirpated successfully with both approaches. There was no statistical difference in operating times, ASIA score improvement, or back pain VAS score improvement between groups. However, the mini-open group had a statistically significantly lower estimated blood loss (146 cc vs. 392 cc) and a significantly shorter length of hospitalization (3.6 vs 7.8 days). There was one complication of pseudomeningocoele formation in the mini-open cohort and no complications in the open cohort. Mean follow-up length was 13 months in the miniopen group compared to 23 months in the open group. The mini-open approach allows for adequate treatment of intradural thoracolumbar tumors with comparable outcomes to standard, open approaches. The mini-open approach is associated with a lower blood loss and a shorter length of stay compared with standard open surgery

Standard approaches to thoracic intradural tumors often involve a large incision and significant tissue destruction. Minimally invasive techniques have been applied successfully for a variety of surgical decompression procedures, but have rarely been used for the removal of intradural thoracolumbar tumors. Here we compare the clinical outcome of mini-open resection of intradural thoracolumbar tumors to a standard open technique. We retrospectively reviewed our series of twelve mini-open thoracolumbar intradural tumor resection cases and compared the outcome to a profile matched cohort of six cases of open intradural tumor resection cases. Operative statistics, functional outcome, and complications were compared. Tumours were extirpated successfully with both approaches. There was no statistical difference in operating times, ASIA score improvement, or back pain VAS score improvement between groups. However, the mini-open group had a statistically significantly lower estimated blood loss (146 cc vs. 392 cc) and a significantly shorter length of hospitalization (3.6 vs 7.8 days). There was one complication of pseudomeningocoele formation in the mini-open cohort and no complications in the open cohort. Mean follow-up length was 13 months in the miniopen group compared to 23 months in the open group. The mini-open approach allows for adequate treatment of intradural thoracolumbar tumors with comparable outcomes to standard, open approaches. The mini-open approach is associated with a lower blood loss and a shorter length of stay compared with standard open surgery