Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Safety and Efficacy of Intradural Extramedullary Spinal Tumor Removal Using a Minimally Invasive Approach

Mannion, Richard J PhD, FRCS*‡; Nowitzke, Adrian M MBBS, FRCAS*; Efendy, Johnny MBBS, PhD*; Wood, Martin J MB BCh, FRACS*†

doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318207b3c7
Instrumentation and Technique

BACKGROUND: Although minimally invasive surgery for intradural tumors offers the potential benefits of less postoperative pain, a quicker recovery, and the avoidance of long-term instability from multilevel laminectomy, there are concerns over whether one can safely and effectively remove intradural extramedullary tumors in a fashion comparable to open techniques and whether the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are clinically significant.

OBJECTIVE: To review our early experience with minimally invasive techniques for intradural extramedullary tumors of the spine.

METHODS: Thirteen intradural tumors (1 cervical, 6 thoracic, 6 lumbar) in 11 patients were operated on using a muscle-splitting, tube-assisted paramedian oblique approach with hemilaminectomy to access the spinal canal while preserving the spinous process and ligaments. Fluoroscopy and navigation were used to determine the surgical level in all thoracic and lumbar cases.

RESULTS: Satisfactory tumor resection using standard microsurgical techniques was achieved in all but 1 case using a minimally invasive approach. Surgical time and intraoperative blood loss were favorable compared with our open technique cases. There was no postoperative morbidity with the minimally invasive approach, although in 2 patients with tumors in the mid- and upper thoracic spine, the surgical incision was inaccurately placed by 1 level. In 1 case, the approach was converted to open when the tumor could not be found, and postoperatively there was a cerebrospinal fluid leak with infection that required readmission.

CONCLUSION: Intradural extramedullary tumors can be safely and effectively removed using minimally invasive techniques. The pros and cons of minimally invasive vs open surgery are discussed.

*Department of Neurosurgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia; †Mater Private Hospital, South Brisbane, Queesland, Australia; ‡Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Received, May 2, 2009.

Accepted, October 1, 2010.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (

Correspondence: Richard J. Mannion, PhD, FRCS, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, UK CB2 2QQ. E-mail:

Copyright © by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons