Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 7/2016

Open Access 01-07-2016 | Palliative Care

Complications After Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Unstable Spinal Metastases

Authors: Anne L. Versteeg, MD, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, MD, PhD, Paul de Baat, MD, Tim U. Jiya, MD, Agnita Stadhouder, MD, Carel H. Diekerhof, MD, Guido B. van Solinge, MD, F. Cumhur Oner, MD, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 7/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Complications after surgical stabilization for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases are common. Less invasive surgical (LIS) procedures are potentially associated with a lower risk of complications; however, little is known regarding the complications after LIS procedures for the treatment of spinal metastases. Our primary objective was to determine the characteristics and rate of complications after percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) for the treatment of mechanically unstable spinal metastases. The secondary objective was to identify factors associated with the occurrence of complications and survival.

Methods

A retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients who underwent PPSF between 2009 and 2014 for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases was performed. Patient data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment, neurologic function, complications, and survival were collected.

Results

A total of 101 patients were identified, 45 men (45 %) and 56 women (55 %) with a mean age of 60.3 ± 11.2 years. The median operating time was 122 (range 57–325) minutes with a median blood loss of 100 ml (based on 41 subjects). Eighty-eight patients (87 %) ambulated within the first 3 days after surgery. An overall median survival of 11.0 (range 0–70) months was observed, with 79 % of the patients alive at 3 months after treatment. Eighteen patients experienced a total of 30 complications; nonsurgical complications were the most commonly encountered. Prolonged operating time was independently associated with an increased risk of complications.

Conclusions

A complication rate of 18 % was found after PPSF for unstable spinal metastases. Potential advantages of less invasive treatment are limited blood loss and high early ambulation rate.
Literature
1.
Nguyen J, Chow E, Zeng L, et al. Palliative response and functional interference outcomes using the Brief Pain Inventory for spinal bony metastases treated with conventional radiotherapy. Clin Oncol. 2011;23:485–91.CrossRef
2.
Bollen L, van der Linden YM, Pondaag W, et al. Prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with symptomatic spinal bone metastases: a retrospective cohort study of 1043 patients. Neurooncology. 2014;16:991–8.
3.
Falicov A, Fisher CG, Sparkes J, Boyd MC, Wing PC, Dvorak MF. Impact of surgical intervention on quality of life in patients with spinal metastases. Spine. 2006;31:2849–56.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Gerszten PC, Welch WC. Current surgical management of metastatic spinal disease. Oncology (Williston Park). 2000;14:1013–1036.PubMed
5.
Lutz S, Berk L, Chang E, et al. Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: an ASTRO evidence-based guideline. Radiat Oncol Biol. 2011;79:965–76.CrossRef
6.
7.
Dea N, Versteeg A, Fisher C, et al. Adverse events in emergency oncological spine surgery: a prospective analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21:698–703.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Molina CA, Gokaslan ZL, Sciubba DM. A systematic review of the current role of minimally invasive spine surgery in the management of metastatic spine disease. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:1–9.CrossRef
9.
Rose PS, Clarke MJ, Dekutoski MB. minimally invasive treatment of spinal metastases: techniques. Radiat Oncol Biol. 2011;2011:1–6.
10.
Uribe JS, Deukmedjian AR, Mummaneni PV, et al. Complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: an analysis of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgical techniques. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E15.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Palmisani M, Gasbarrini A, Brodano GB, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(S1):71–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
12. Zairi F, Court C, Tropiano P, et al. Minimally invasive management of thoraco-lumbar fractures: combined percutaneous fixation and balloon kyphoplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:S105–11.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Moussazadeh N, Rubin D, McLaughlin L, Lis E, Bilsky MH, Laufer I. Short-segment percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with cement augmentation for tumor-induced spinal instability. Spine J. 2015;15:1609–17.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Park HY, Lee SH, Park SJ, Kim ES, Lee CS, Eoh W. Minimally invasive option using percutaneous pedicle screw for instability of metastasis involving thoracolumbar and lumbar spine: a case series in a single center. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57:100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Kim CH, Chung CK, Sohn S, Lee S, Park SB. Less invasive palliative surgery for spinal metastases. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:499–503.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Schwab JH, Gasbarrini A, Cappuccio M, et al. Minimally invasive posterior stabilization improved ambulation and pain scores in patients with plasmacytomas and/or metastases of the spine. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:1–5.CrossRef
17.
Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, et al. A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: an evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010 35:E1221–9.CrossRef
18.
Patil CG, Lad SP, Santarelli, Boakye M. National inpatient complications and outcomes after surgery for spinal metastasis from 1993–2002. Cancer. 2007;110:625–30.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Harel R, Angelov L. Spine metastases: current treatments and future directions. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:2696–707.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Rades D, Rudat V, Veninga T. A score predicting posttreatment ambulatory status in patients irradiated for metastatic spinal cord compression. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72:905–08.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):643–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Horowitz M, Neeman E, Sharon E, Ben-Eliyahu S. Exploiting the critical perioperative period to improve long-term cancer outcomes. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:213–26.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Donnelly DJ, Abd-El-Barr MM, Lu Y. Minimally invasive muscle sparing posterior-only approach for lumbar circumferential decompression and stabilization to treat spine metastasis—technical report. World Neurosurg. 2015;84:1484–90.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34:535–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: Macleod CM, editor. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Columbia University Press; 1949. p. 199–205.
Metadata
Title
Complications After Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Unstable Spinal Metastases
Authors
Anne L. Versteeg, MD
Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, MD, PhD
Paul de Baat, MD
Tim U. Jiya, MD
Agnita Stadhouder, MD
Carel H. Diekerhof, MD
Guido B. van Solinge, MD
F. Cumhur Oner, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-07-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5156-9

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 7/2016 Go to the issue

Gynecologic Oncology

Laparoscopic Indocyanine Green Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Conditional Survival as a Patient Centered Metric for Patients with Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma

Colorectal Cancer

Efficacy of Early Postoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy After Complete Surgical Resection of Peritoneal Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer: A Case–Control Study from a Single Center

Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Health-Related Quality of Life After Pancreatectomy: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Colorectal Cancer

Oncologic Outcomes of Extended Robotic Resection for Rectal Cancer

Gynecologic Oncology

Type B versus Type C Radical Hysterectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Carcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Analysis