Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Regular article

Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study

Authors: Hiroshi Uei, Yasuaki Tokuhashi, Masafumi Maseda, Masahiro Nakahashi, Hirokatsu Sawada, Enshi Nakayama, Hirotoki Soma

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Posterior decompression and stabilization plays significant roles in palliative surgery for metastatic spinal tumor. However, the indication for addition of posterior decompression have not been examined. The purpose of this study was to investigate a retrospective cohort of outcomes of metastatic spinal tumor treated with minimally invasive spine stabilization (MISt) with or without posterior decompression.

Methods

The subjects were 40 patients who underwent MISt using percutaneous pedicle screws for metastatic spinal tumor, including 20 patients treated with stabilization alone (group A) and 20 patients with added posterior decompression (group B). We analyzed baseline characteristics, postoperative survival time, and perioperative factors such as neurological outcomes, Barthel Index, VAS, and rate of discharge to home.

Results

The mean ages were 70 and 66 years old (P = 0.06), the mean revised Tokuhashi scores were 7.2 and 5.8 (P = 0.1), the mean spinal instability neoplastic scores (SINS) were 10.5 and 9.0 (P = 0.04), and the mean Barthel Index for ADL were 65.5 and 41.0 (P = 0.06) in groups A and B, respectively. The median postoperative survival time did not differ significantly between groups A and B (12.0 vs. 6.0 months, P = 0.09). Patients in group A had a significantly shorter operation time (166 vs. 232 min, P = 0.004) and lower intraoperative blood loss (120 vs. 478 mL, P < 0.001). Postoperative paralysis (P = 0.1), paralysis improvement rate (P = 0.09), postoperative Barthel Index (P = 0.06), and postoperative VAS (P = 0.6) did not differ significantly between the groups. The modified Frankel classification improved from D1 or D2 before surgery to D3 or E after surgery in 4 of 10 cases (40%) in group A and 8 of 8 patients (100%) in group B (P = 0.01). Significantly more patients were discharged to home in group A (P = 0.02), whereas significantly more patients died in the hospital in group B (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

Patients treated without decompression had a shorter operation time, less blood loss, a higher rate of discharge to home, and lower in-hospital mortality, indicating a procedure with lower invasiveness. MISt without decompression is advantageous for patients with D3 or milder paralysis, but decompression is necessary for patients with D2 or severer paralysis.

Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer. 2003;98:1735–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11701.CrossRefPubMed

Tokuhashi Y, Ajiro Y, Umezawa N. Outcome of treatment for spinal metastases using scoring system for preoperative evaluation of prognosis. Spine. 2009;34:69–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181913f19.CrossRefPubMed

Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, et al. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine. 2005;30:2186–91.CrossRefPubMed

Tokuhashi Y, Uei H, Oshima M, et al. Scoring system for prediction of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. World J Orthop. 2014;5:262–71. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.262.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Verlaan JJ, Choi D, Versteeg A, et al. Characteristics of patients who survived < 3 months or > 2 years after surgery for spinal metastases: can we avoid inappropriate patient selection? J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3054–61. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.65.1497.CrossRefPubMed

Uei H, Tokuhashi Y, Maseda M. Treatment outcome of metastatic spine tumor in lung cancer patients: did the treatments improve their outcomes? Spine. 2017;42:E1446–e1451. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002382.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chow E, Zeng L, Salvo N, et al. Update on the systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24:112–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2011.11.004.CrossRef

Uei H, Tokuhashi Y, Maseda M. Analysis of the relationship between the epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) scale and paralysis caused by metastatic spine tumors. Spine. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002378.

Uei H, Tokuhashi Y, Oshima M, et al. Clinical results of minimally invasive spine stabilization for spinal metastases. Orthopedics. 2017;40:e693–8. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20170522-02.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bouza C, Lopez-Cuadrado T, Cediel P, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty in malignant spinal fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Palliat Care. 2009;8:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-684x-8-12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Hansen-Algenstaedt N, Kwan MK, Algenstaedt P, et al. Comparison between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for patients with spinal metastasis: a prospective propensity score-matched study. Spine. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001893.

12.

Miscusi M, Polli FM, Forcato S, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive surgery with standard open surgery for vertebral thoracic metastases causing acute myelopathy in patients with short- or mid-term life expectancy: surgical technique and early clinical results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22:518–25. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.spine131201.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Tancioni F, Navarria P, Pessina F, et al. Assessment of prognostic factors in patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) from solid tumor after surgery plus radiotherapy: a single institution experience. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 1):S146–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2232-0.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zairi F, Arikat A, Allaoui M, et al. Minimally invasive decompression and stabilization for the management of thoracolumbar spine metastasis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:19–23. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.4.spine111108.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hikata T, Isogai N, Shiono Y, et al. A retrospective cohort study comparing the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive versus open surgical techniques in the treatment of spinal metastases. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000460.

16.

Kumar N, Malhotra R, Maharajan K, et al. Metastatic spine tumor surgery: a comparative study of minimally invasive approach using percutaneous pedicle screws fixation versus open approach. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000400.

17.

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;2011:239230. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/239230.PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kwan MK, Lee CK, Chan CY. Minimally invasive spinal stabilization using fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous screws as a form of palliative surgery in patients with spinal metastasis. Asian Spine J. 2016;10:99–110. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.1.99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Gu Y, Dong J, Jiang X, et al. Minimally invasive pedicle screws fixation and percutaneous vertebroplasty for the surgical treatment of thoracic metastatic tumors with neurologic compression. Spine. 2016;41(Suppl 19):B14–b22. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001811.CrossRefPubMed

20.

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. 2010;35:E1221–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e16ae2.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bradford DS, McBride GG. Surgical management of thoracolumbar spine fractures with incomplete neurologic deficits. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;218:201–16.

22.

Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR, et al. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:324–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.spine09459.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Maryland State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

24.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Schoenfeld AJ, Leonard DA, Saadat E, et al. Predictors of 30- and 90-day survival following surgical intervention for spinal metastases: a prognostic study conducted at four academic centers. Spine. 2016;41:E503–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001273.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Turner I, Minhas Z, Kennedy J, et al. Cost of surgery for symptomatic spinal metastases in the United Kingdom. World Neurosurg. 2015;84:1235–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.06.008.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Chong S, Shin SH, Yoo H, et al. Single-stage posterior decompression and stabilization for metastasis of the thoracic spine: prognostic factors for functional outcome and patients’ survival. Spine J. 2012;12:1083–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.015.CrossRefPubMed

28.

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;366:643–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66954-1.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Hamano J, Yamaguchi T, Maeda I, et al. Multicenter cohort study on the survival time of cancer patients dying at home or in a hospital: does place matter? Cancer. 2016;122:1453–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29844.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study
Authors: Hiroshi Uei
Yasuaki Tokuhashi
Masafumi Maseda
Masahiro Nakahashi
Hirokatsu Sawada
Enshi Nakayama
Hirotoki Soma
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0777-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison between minimally invasive spine stabilization with and without posterior decompression for the management of spinal metastases: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Finite element analysis of the tibial bone graft in cementless total knee arthroplasty

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Comparison of two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP—a meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trial studies

Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up

Percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of very severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with spinal canal compromise

Hip pathology: the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging

Clinical value of 3D printing guide plate in core decompression plus porous bioceramics rod placement for the treatment of early osteonecrosis of the femoral head