Demonstrates effective bilateral tumor dissection in intramedullary spinal cord tumors using a modified technique, highlighting its potential benefits.
Background: Posterior approaches to intramedullary spinal cord tumors traditionally rely on bilateral laminotomy or laminoplasty to ensure adequate midline exposure and contralateral dissection. Unilateral approaches are seldom applied in this context, due to concerns regarding insufficient visualization and limited working angles across the midline. Objective: To describe a modified hemilaminectomy technique designed to achieve safe midline myelotomy and bilateral tumor dissection through a unilateral corridor, preserving the structural and clinical benefits of minimally invasive posterior access. Methods: Fourteen patients with intramedullary spinal cord tumors underwent resection via a refined hemilaminectomy technique, which incorporated systematic thinning of the spinous process and strategic dural suspension. Pre- and postoperative neurological status was assessed using the modified McCormick scale. Surgical parameters, postoperative outcomes, and radiological follow-up were retrospectively collected. Results: Gross total resection was achieved in 13 of 14 patients (92.9%), with no new permanent neurological deficits. The mean surgical duration was 194.8 ± 55.9 min, and mean hemoglobin decrease was 1.47 ± 0.94 g/dL. Early postoperative improvement in McCormick grade was observed in 50% of cases, with statistically significant overall functional recovery (p = 0.013). No cases of postoperative cord tethering were identified on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. The approach was technically reproducible and ergonomically favorable, with a shallow learning curve in surgeons experienced with conventional hemilaminectomy. Conclusions: The modified hemilaminectomy technique enables effective bilateral exposure and safe midline myelotomy through a unilateral approach, achieving high resection rates with minimal morbidity. It represents a feasible and reproducible alternative to bilateral approaches and warrants prospective validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paolini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: