Trans-facet Pedicle Sparing Approach Versus Transthoracic Approach for Thoracic Disc Disease: A Review of 19 Cases

Abstract

Background: Thoracic disc herniation is a rare illness and is mainly asymptomatic. There are some surgical approaches to treat symptomatic patients, and none has absolute dominance over the others. For this reason, there is a debate between spine surgeons to decide which method could help these patients with better efficacy and safety. Objectives: To seek the potential differences between the two of these methods, the conventional anterior transthoracic and the more recent modified transfacet approaches, we conducted this study. Methods: This is a retrospective case-series study comparing the anterior transthoracic and the modified transfacet method; each of these approaches was preferred and performed by one surgery team. Patients were divided into two groups based on the procedure and assessed using Frankel’s Score, Visual Along Scale (VAS) Score, Short-Form Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36), and the spine functional index (SFI). Results: Eleven patients underwent a transthoracic approach, and eight patients had a posterior transfacet pedicle-sparing approach. The Frankel’s score improved at least one score in ten patients from the transthoracic group and seven patients from the transfacet pedicle-sparing group. No major difference was found between the two groups concerning SFI and SF-36 questionnaire. Conclusions: This study exhibited satisfying efficacy and safety of the modified transfacet pedicle-sparing method compared to the transthoracic approach. Both improved Frankel’s scores, SFI, and patients’ quality of life. Despite encountering some limitations, especially a small number of subjects, our study suggests that these surgical methods could be used efficiently considering the patient’s comorbidities, location of the herniated disc and its calcification, and experience and skill of the surgeon.