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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neuroradiology

01-04-2009 | Interventional Neuroradiology

Percutaneous vertebroplasty for multiple myeloma of the cervical spine

Authors: Francisco Mont’Alverne, Jean-Noel Vallée, Remy Guillevin, Evelyne Cormier, Betty Jean, Michelle Rose, José Guilherme Caldas, Jacques Chiras

Published in: Neuroradiology | Issue 4/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Spinal involvement is a common presentation of multiple myeloma (MM); however, the cervical spine is the least common site of myelomatous involvement. Few studies evaluate the results of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) in the treatment of MM of the spine. The purpose of this series is to report on the use of PV in the treatment of MM of the cervical spine and to review the literature.

Materials and methods

From January 1994 to October 2007, four patients (three men and one woman; mean age, 45 years) who underwent five PV for painful MM in the cervical spine were retrospectively reviewed. The pain was estimated by the patient on a verbal analogic scale. Clinical follow-up was available for all patients (mean, 27.5 months; range, 1–96 months).

Results

The mean volume of cement injected per vertebral body was 2.3 ± 0.8 mL (range, 1.0–4.0 mL) with a mean vertebral filling of 55.0 ± 12.0% (range, 40.0–75.0%). Analgesic efficacy was achieved in all patients. One patient had a spinal instability due to a progression of spinal deformity noted on follow-up radiographs, without clinical symptoms. Cement leakage was detected in three (60%) of the five treated vertebrae. There was no clinical complication.

Conclusions

The present series suggests that PV for MM of the cervical spine is safe and effective for pain control; nonetheless, the detrimental impact of the disease on bone quality should prompt close radiological follow-up after PV owing to the risk of spinal instability.
Literature
1.
2.
Cotten A, Boutry N, Cortet B (2002) Multiple myeloma. In: Mathis JM, Deramond H, Belkoff SM (eds) Percutaneous vertebroplasty. Springer, New York, pp 134–137
3.
4.
Yeh HS, Berenson JR (2006) Treatment for myeloma bone disease. Clin Cancer Res 12:6279–6284CrossRef
5.
Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Maldague BE (1997) Vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma. Part I. Distribution and appearance at MR imaging. Radiology 204:195–199PubMed
6.
Chiras J, Depriester C, Weill A et al (1997) Percutaneous vertebral surgery. Technics and indications. J Neuroradiol 24:45–59PubMed
7.
Deramond H, Depriester C, Galibert P et al (1998) Percutaneous vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate. Technique, indications, and results. Radiol Clin North Am 36:533–546PubMedCrossRef
8.
Ramos L, de Las Heras JA, Sánchez S et al (2006) Medium-term results of percutaneous vertebroplasty in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 77:7–13PubMedCrossRef
9.
Diamond TH, Hartwell T, Clarke W et al (2004) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for acute vertebral body fracture and deformity in multiple myeloma: a short report. Br J Haematol 124:485–487PubMedCrossRef
10.
McDonald RJ, Trout AT, Gray LA et al (2008) Vertebroplasty in multiple myeloma: outcomes in a large patient series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29:642–648PubMedCrossRef
11.
Pflugmacher R, Schleicher P, Schröder RJ et al (2006) Maintained pain reduction in five patients with multiple myeloma 12 months after treatment of the involved cervical vertebrae with vertebroplasty. Acta Radiol 47:823–829PubMedCrossRef
12.
Jantunen E, Laakso M (1996) Biophosphonates in multiple myeloma: current status; future perspectives. Br J Haematol 93:501–506PubMedCrossRef
13.
Angtuaco EJ, Fassas AB, Walker R et al (2004) Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology 231:11–23PubMedCrossRef
14.
Jonsson B, Jonsson H Jr, Karlstrom G et al (1994) Surgery of cervical spine metastases: a retrospective study. Eur Spine J 3:76–83PubMedCrossRef
15.
Rao G, Ha CS, Chakrabarti I et al (2006) Multiple myeloma of the cervical spine: treatment strategies for pain and spinal instability. J Neurosurg Spine 5:140–145PubMedCrossRef
16.
Lecouvet F, Richard F, Vande BB et al (1997) Longterm effects of localized spinal radiation therapy on vertebral fractures and focal lesions appearance in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 96:743–745PubMedCrossRef
17.
Jonsson B, Sjostrom L, Jonsson H Jr et al (1992) Surgery for multiple myeloma of the spine. A retrospective analysis of 12 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 63:192–194PubMedCrossRef
18.
Chataigner H, Onimus M, Polette A (1998) Surgical treatment of myeloma localized in the spine. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 84:311–318PubMed
19.
Wegener B, Muller PE, Jansson V et al (2004) Cervical spine metastasis of multiple myeloma: a case report with 16 years of follow-up. Spine 29:E368–E372PubMedCrossRef
20.
Durr HR, Wegener B, Krodel A et al (2002) Multiple myeloma: surgery of the spine: retrospective analysis of 27 patients. Spine 27:320–326PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ploeg WT, Veldhuizen AG, The B et al (2006) Percutaneous vertebroplasty as a treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 15:1749–1758PubMedCrossRef
22.
Yang X, Mi S, Mahadevia AA et al (2008) Pain reduction in osteoporotic patients with vertebral pain without measurable compression. Neuroradiology 50:153–159PubMedCrossRef
23.
Evans AJ, Jensen ME, Kip KE et al (2003) Vertebral compression fractures: pain reduction and improvement in functional mobility after percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty retrospective report of 245 cases. Radiology 226:366–372PubMedCrossRef
24.
Hodler J, Peck D, Gilula LA (2003) Midterm outcome after vertebroplasty: predictive value of technical and patient-related factors. Radiology 227:662–668PubMedCrossRef
25.
Feydy A, Cognard C, Miaux Y et al (1996) Acrylic vertebroplasty in symptomatic cervical vertebral haemangiomas: report of 2 cases. Neuroradiology 38:389–391PubMedCrossRef
26.
Weill A, Chiras J, Simon JM et al (1996) Spinal metastases: indications for and results of percutaneous injection of acrylic surgical cement. Radiology 199:241–247PubMed
27.
Cotten A, Dewatre F, Cortet B et al (1996) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteolytic metastases and myeloma: effects of the percentage of lesion filling and the leakage of methyl methacrylate at clinical follow-up. Radiology 200:525–530PubMed
28.
Calmels V, Vallée JN, Rose M et al (2007) Osteoblastic and mixed spinal metastases: evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:570–574PubMed
29.
Mont’Alverne F, Vallee JN, Cormier E et al (2005) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for metastatic involvement of the axis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:1641–1645PubMed
30.
Pilitsis JG, Rengachary SS (2001) The role of vertebroplasty in metastatic spinal disease. Neurosurg Focus 11:1–4CrossRef
31.
Barragán-Campos HM, Vallée JN, Lo D et al (2006) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for spinal metastases: complications. Radiology 238:354–362PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Percutaneous vertebroplasty for multiple myeloma of the cervical spine
Authors
Francisco Mont’Alverne
Jean-Noel Vallée
Remy Guillevin
Evelyne Cormier
Betty Jean
Michelle Rose
José Guilherme Caldas
Jacques Chiras
Publication date
01-04-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Neuroradiology / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0028-3940
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1920
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-008-0484-5