Distribution and incidence of TOLF and DO
Patients with TOLF are more common among East Asian populations, and the onset stage is mainly T9–T12[3-5]. This research describes the surgical experience of 32 Chinese patients who underwent single-segment TOLF with or without DO. TOLF was found to be mostly in the lower thoracic spine, with more than half (75%) of the DO located in T9–T12, consistent with previous studies.
The exact incidence of dural ossification in thoracic ligamentum flavum ossification is unclear because most articles mainly describe multisegmental TOLF, few studies have been conducted to explain the combination of DO in single-segment TOLF alone, and it has been suggested that the occurrence of DO is rare. In contrast, among the 32 patients with segmental TOLF included in this paper, 12 patients had combined DO, the prevalence of which was 37.5%, which is like the outcomes reported by Muthukumar and Li et al.[16, 18]. The incidence of TOLF with DO is relatively high. However, studies on the distribution and prevalence of DO are inadequate, and the present study further provides an additional explanation.
Surgical procedure and results
Surgical decompression has been the best treatment option for compressive myelopathy because TOLF-associated myelopathy influences the posterior part of the spinal canal[11-13]. However, surgical decompression for TOLF with DO has been treated in different ways. Sun et al.[11] reported two surgical approaches for the treatment of TOLF combined with DO: dural opening and removal of ossification and floating of the ossified dura by drilling and thinning. Wang et al.[12]compared posterior decompression laminectomy with or without internal fixation and fusion therapy, and both surgical methods are effective methods for the treatment of TOLF and can provide satisfactory clinical improvement. In patients with thoracic spinal myelopathy combined with specific types of TOLF, the use of percutaneous total endoscopic posterior decompression (PEPD) is feasible as the most minimally invasive spinal decompression procedure. However, this surgical approach makes it difficult to treat TOLF patients with DO[13]. In combination with the surgical approach of the abovementioned studies, this study adopts posterior laminar decompression and internal fixation, and if DO is found intraoperatively, it is removed together with TOLF. The great advantage of this surgical approach is complete decompression and avoidance of ossification recurrence. Although the thoracic spine has restricted motion and better stability compared to the cervical and lumbar spine, our previous study on the clinical efficacy analysis of laminectomy alone and with instrumentation in treating TOLF showed better clinical outcomes and lower perioperative complication rates after internal fixation laminectomy (LI) compared to postoperative laminectomy alone (LA)[22]. For insurance purposes, we performed internal fusion of the operated segments to increase stability and safety and reduce the risk of complications in the thoracic spine.
In this study, no diversity was found in the preoperative duration of symptoms between the two groups compared with those without DO, but the DO group had longer surgery, more bleeding, and longer hospital stays. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no great diversity in operative time between the two groups, while intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay were related to the DO group. If the OLF adhered to the DO during the operation, it would be difficult to separate, so it would need to be removed together; when removing the DO, the surgeon needs to be careful to avoid spinal cord injury because the removal of the DO will cause CSF leakage, so the amount of blood loss during the operation is greater. Postoperative treatment with local pressure and delayed drainage tube removal is needed, so the length of stay is also longer.
In our study, the postoperative recovery of the two groups was mainly good and fair. This is similar to the results of Wang et al.[12], who reported that 8 (24.2%) patients had excellent recovery, 22 (66.7%) patients recovered well, 2 (6%) patients recovered fairly and 1 (3%) patient recovered poorly. However, compared with the complications in other studies, the complications in this study were relatively simple. The main complication in our study was CSF leakage, which was related to the surgical method adopted in this study. During the operation, we found that patients with DO would be directly excised together with TOLF, so patients with DO would suffer from CSF leakage caused by dural defects. Recovery is usually possible with intraoperative repair of the defective dura and with conservative postoperative treatment.
Postoperative neurological recovery and health-related quality of life scores
There are relatively few reports on the postoperative neurological recovery and quality of life of single segment TOLF combined with DO. Aizawa et al. [23] reported that poor recovery after TOLF may be related to inadequate decompression. Sun et al. [15] displayed that despite a diversity in JOA scores between the two groups both preoperatively and postoperatively, with the DO group being lower than the non-DO group, there is no statistically significant diversity in neurological recovery between the two groups. In this study, there was no significant difference in postoperative neurological function recovery between the DO and non-DO groups. This may be related to adequate decompression found in both groups. Therefore, under sufficient decompression, DO was not associated with the recovery of neurological function after TOLF. All patients in our research underwent posterior laminar decompression and internal fixation. At the follow-up examination, a significant improvement was found in the preoperative and postoperative JOA scores. However, most of the recovery was incomplete, with a mean value of 50.83 ± 11.09% for the DO group and 53.15 ± 11.29% for the non-DO group for RR. Similar to previous reports [14, 24, 25].
No great diversity was found in HRQOL between the two groups during follow-up. Nevertheless, most postoperative indicators of patients, including social function, physical function, mental health, vitality and overall health, were significantly enhanced, but the improvement in postoperative bodily pain showed no difference between the group with or without DO. This may be because DO mainly compresses the spinal cord centrally rather than the nerve roots, and therefore, the improvement in somatic pain is not significant.
There were some limitations in this study. First, the duration of follow-up was short, and longer follow-up is therefore needed to verify the outcomes of this research. Second, small sample size may affect the statistical results. Third, there may be some inherent biases in the retrospective study design and patient data. However, this article examines patients with single-segment TOLF with DO to add a more nuanced perspective on this type of disease.