Surgical oncology · 2022
Radiofrequency ablation for spinal osteoid osteoma: A systematic review of safety and treatment outcomes.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sagoo Navraj S, Haider Ali S, Chen Andrew L, Vannabouathong Christopher, Larsen Kylan, Sharma Ruhi, Palmisciano Paolo, Alamer Othman Bin, Igbinigie Matthew, Wells Daniel B, Aoun Salah G, Passias Peter G, Vira Shaleen
Аннотация
AIM: We sought to systematically assess and summarize the available literature on the clinical outcomes and complications following radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for painful spinal osteoid osteoma (OO).
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies with available data on safety and clinical outcomes following RFA for spinal OO were included.
RESULTS: In the 14 included studies (11 retrospective; 3 prospective), 354 patients underwent RFA for spinal OO. The mean ages ranged from 16.4 to 28 years (Females = 31.3%). Lesion diameters ranged between 3 and 20 mm and were frequently seen in the posterior elements in 211/331 (64%) patients. The mean distance between OO lesions and neural elements ranged between 1.7 and 7.4 mm. The estimated pain reduction on the numerical rating scale was 6.85/10 (95% confidence intervals [95%CI] 4.67-9.04) at a 12-24-month follow-up; and 7.29/10 (95% CI 6.67-7.91) at a >24-month follow-up (range 24-55 months). Protective measures (e.g., epidural air insufflation or neuroprotective sterile water infusion) were used in 43/354 (12.1%) patients. Local tumor progression was seen in 23/354 (6.5%) patients who were then successfully re-treated with RFA or open surgical resection. Grade I-II complications such as temporary limb paresthesia and wound dehiscence were reported in 4/354 (1.1%) patients. No Grade III-V complications were reported.
CONCLUSION: RFA demonstrated safety and clinical efficacy in most patients harboring painful spinal OO lesions. However, further prospective studies evaluating these outcomes are warranted.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies with available data on safety and clinical outcomes following RFA for spinal OO were included.
RESULTS: In the 14 included studies (11 retrospective; 3 prospective), 354 patients underwent RFA for spinal OO. The mean ages ranged from 16.4 to 28 years (Females = 31.3%). Lesion diameters ranged between 3 and 20 mm and were frequently seen in the posterior elements in 211/331 (64%) patients. The mean distance between OO lesions and neural elements ranged between 1.7 and 7.4 mm. The estimated pain reduction on the numerical rating scale was 6.85/10 (95% confidence intervals [95%CI] 4.67-9.04) at a 12-24-month follow-up; and 7.29/10 (95% CI 6.67-7.91) at a >24-month follow-up (range 24-55 months). Protective measures (e.g., epidural air insufflation or neuroprotective sterile water infusion) were used in 43/354 (12.1%) patients. Local tumor progression was seen in 23/354 (6.5%) patients who were then successfully re-treated with RFA or open surgical resection. Grade I-II complications such as temporary limb paresthesia and wound dehiscence were reported in 4/354 (1.1%) patients. No Grade III-V complications were reported.
CONCLUSION: RFA demonstrated safety and clinical efficacy in most patients harboring painful spinal OO lesions. However, further prospective studies evaluating these outcomes are warranted.