经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定联合可扩张管状牵开器下肿瘤切除治疗脊柱转移瘤的效果

doi:10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.03.020

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 探讨经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定联合可扩张管状牵开器下肿瘤切除治疗脊柱转移瘤的临床疗效。方法: 对2017年6月至2019年10月在北京大学第一医院骨科接受经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定联合可扩张管状牵开器下肿瘤切除治疗的12例脊柱转移瘤患者进行回顾性研究，收集患者围手术期临床资料、术后辅助治疗情况、生存期以及内固定失败情况，比较术前、术后视觉模拟评分(visual analog scale，VAS)、卡氏(Karnofsky)评分和美国东部肿瘤协作组(Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group，ECOG)评分的变化。结果: 所有患者均手术顺利，平均手术时间、术中失血量和输血量分别为(247.0±14.6) min、(804.2±222.3) mL和(500.0±100.0) mL，平均伤口引流量为(240.8±79.3) mL，患者均在术后早期拔除引流管并下地活动，平均(3.2±0.3) d，术后平均住院(7.8±0.8) d。所有患者均获得随访，随访时间6~30个月，平均生存期(13.6±2.4)个月。随访期间有2例患者出现螺钉移位，均获得有效治疗。术前VAS为(7.1±0.2)分，术后3个月和6个月分别为(2.3±0.1)分和(2.8±0.4)分，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。术前卡氏评分为(59.2±1.9)分，术后3个月和6个月分别为(75.0±1.9)分和(74.2±3.1)分，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。术前ECOG为(2.3±0.2)分，术后3个月和6个月分别为(1.7±0.1)分和(1.7±0.2)分，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论: 严格把握适应证，经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定联合可扩张管状牵开器手术能够有效缓解脊柱转移瘤患者的临床症状并改善生活质量，临床疗效满意。

关键词: 脊柱, 转移瘤切除术, 最小侵入性外科手术, 经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined expandable tubular retractor in the treatment of patients with spinal metastases. Methods: In the study, 12 patients of spinal metastases treated with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined expandable tubular retractor in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed between June 2017 and October 2019. Among the 12 patients, 9 were males and 3 were females; the median age was 62.5 years [(65.1±2.9) years]. The decompression segment of 7 patients was located at the lower thoracic spine (including 1 patient with incomplete paraplegia) and the decompression segment of 5 patients was located at the lumbar spine; Tomita score was 6.0±0.6. Perioperative data of the patients were reviewed. Visual analog scale (VAS score), Karnofsky score, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score were compared before and after surgery. The patient's survival, adjuvant treatment, and internal fixation failure were observed in the follow-up period. Results: All the 12 patients had a successful operation with percuta-neous pedicle screw fixation combined expandable tubular retractor. The average operative time, blood loss, and blood transfused of the patients were (247.0±14.6) min, (804.2±222.3) mL and (500.0±100.0) mL, respectively. The average amount of drainage was (240.8±79.3) mL. Drainage tubes were pulled out early postoperative [(3.2±0.3) d], allowing early mobilization. The patients discharged (7.8±0.8) d postoperative. All the patients were followed up for 6-30 months, and the average overall survival time was (13.6±2.4) months. During the follow-up period, 2 patients experienced screw displacement, the internal fixation was stable after conservative treatment and no revision surgery was performed. The VAS of the patients was 7.1±0.2 before surgery, which decreased to 2.3±0.1 and 2.8±0.4 at 3 and 6 months after surgery (P < 0.05). The Karnofsky score of the patients was 59.2±1.9 before surgery, which increased to 75.0±1.9 and 74.2±3.1 at 3 and 6 months after surgery (P < 0.05). The ECOG of the patients was 2.3±0.2 before surgery, which decreased to 1.7±0.1 and 1.7±0.2 at 3 and 6 months after surgery (P < 0.05). Conclusion: For selected patients with spinal metastases, minimally invasive surgical treatment of spinal metastases (percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation combined with expandable tubular retractor) can effectively relieve the clinical symptoms and improve the quality of life, with satisfactory clinical outcome.

Key words: Spinal, Metastasectomy, Minimally invasive surgical procedures, Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation

中图分类号:

R738.1

崔云鹏,施学东,刘佳,米川,王冰,潘元星,林云飞. 经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定联合可扩张管状牵开器下肿瘤切除治疗脊柱转移瘤的效果[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(3): 530-536.

Yun-peng CUI,Xue-dong SHI,Jia LIU,Chuan MI,Bing WANG,Yuan-xing PAN,Yun-fei LIN. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined expandable tubular retractor in the treatment of spinal metastases[J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(3): 530-536.

图/表 7

表1

图1

表2

图2

表3

表4

图3

参考文献 25

1	Siegel RL , Miller KD , Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2019[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2019, 69 (1): 7- 34. doi: 10.3322/caac.21551
2	中华医学会骨科学分会骨肿瘤学组. 骨转移瘤外科治疗专家共识[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2009, 29 (12): 1177- 1184. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2352.2009.12.024
3	中华医学会骨科学分会骨肿瘤学组. 脊柱转移瘤外科治疗指南[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2019, 39 (12): 717- 726.
4	Kawahara N , Tomita K , Murakami H , et al. Total en bloc spondylectomy for spinal tumors: surgical techniques and related basic background[J]. Orthop Clin North Am, 2009, 40 (1): 47- 63. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2008.09.004
5	Tokuhashi Y , Matsuzaki H , Oda H , et al. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2005, 30 (19): 2186- 2191. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000180401.06919.a5
6	Spratt DE , Beeler WH , de Moraes FY , et al. An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: An International Spine Oncology Consortium report[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2017, 18 (12): e720- e730. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30612-5
7	Laufer I , Rubin DG , Lis E , et al. The NOMS framework: Approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors[J]. Oncologist, 2013, 18 (6): 744- 751. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0293
8	Paton GR , Frangou E , Fourney DR . Contemporary treatment strategy for spinal metastasis: The "LMNOP" system[J]. Can J Neurol Sci, 2011, 38 (3): 396- 403. doi: 10.1017/S031716710001177X
9	Weigel B , Maghsudi M , Neumann C , et al. Surgical management of symptomatic spinal metastases: Postoperative outcome and quality of life[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1999, 24 (21): 2240- 2246. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199911010-00012
10	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[J]. Lancet, 2005, 366 (9486): 643- 648. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66954-1
11	Jansson KA , Bauer HCF . Survival, complications and outcome in 282 patients operated for neurological deficit due to thoracic or lumbar spinal metastases[J]. Eur Spine J, 2006, 15 (2): 196- 202. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0870-6
12	Finkelstein JA , Zaveri G , Wai E , et al. A population-based study of surgery for spinal metastases survival rates and complications[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2003, 85 (7): 1045- 1050.
13	Tian NF , Wu YS , Zhang XL , et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar the current evidence[J]. Eur Spine J, 2013, 22 (8): 174l- 1749.
14	Ge DH , Stekas ND , Varlotta CG , et al. Comparative analysis of two transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques: Open TLIF versus Wiltse MIS TLIF[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2019, 44 (9): E555- E560. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002903
15	Moussazadeh N , Rubin DG , McLaughlin L , et al. Short-segment percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with cement augmentation for tumor-induced spinal instability[J]. Spine J, 2015, 15 (7): 1609- 1617. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.037
16	Lau D , Chou D . Posterior thoracic corpectomy with cage reconstruction for metastatic spinal tumors: Comparing the mini-open approach to the open approach[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2015, 23 (8): 217- 227.
17	Hansen-Algenstaedt N , Kwan MK , Algenstaedt P , et al. Compa-rison between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for patients with spinal metastasis: A prospective propensity score-matched study[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2017, 42 (10): 789- 797. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001893
18	Lu VM , Alvi MA , Goyal A , et al. The potential of minimally invasive surgery to treat metastatic spinal disease versus open surge-ry: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. World Neurosurg, 2018, 112, e859- e868. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.176
19	Nzokou A , Weil AG , Shedid D . Minimally invasive removal of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors using a nonexpandable tubular retractor: Clinical article[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2013, 19 (6): 708- 715. doi: 10.3171/2013.9.SPINE121061
20	Tian F , Tu LY , Gu WF , et al. Percutaneous versus open pedicle screw instrumentation in treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018, 97 (41): e12535. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012535
21	李长青, 张伟, 常献, 等. 小切口减压结合经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗伴神经功能损害的胸腰椎骨折[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2014, 24 (5): 395- 399.
22	Zairi F , Arikat A , Allaoui M , et al. Minimally invasive decompression and stabilization for the management of thoracolumbar spine metastasis[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2012, 17 (1): 19- 23. doi: 10.3171/2012.4.SPINE111108
23	Harel R , Doron O , Knoller N . Minimally invasive spine metastatic tumor resection and stabilization: New technology yield improved outcome[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2015, 2015, 948373.
24	Hong CG , Cho JH , Suh DC , et al. Preoperative embolization in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression: Mandatory or optional?[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2017, 15 (1): 45. doi: 10.1186/s12957-017-1118-3
25	Nandyala SV , Fineberg SJ , Pelton M , et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: One surgeon's learning curve[J]. Spine J, 2014, 14 (8): 1460- 1465. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.045

相关文章 15

[1]	马利加,胡攀攀,刘晓光. 脊柱转移癌伴软脊膜转移1例[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(3): 563-566.
[2]	郑丹枫,李君禹,李佳曦,张英爽,钟延丰,于淼. 青少年特发性脊柱侧凸椎旁肌的病理特征[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(2): 283-291.
[3]	唐彦超,赵文奎,于淼,刘晓光. 无症状中国年轻人颈椎矢状位曲度正常值及其与全脊柱平衡的关系[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(4): 712-718.
[4]	李君,刘旭红,王工,程程,庄洪卿,杨瑞杰. 手臂位置对射波刀放射治疗脊柱肿瘤患者的剂量学影响[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(1): 182-186.
[5]	周柏林,李危石,孙垂国,齐强,陈仲强,曾岩. 脊柱手术后深部切口感染患者多次清创的危险因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(2): 286-292.
[6]	柯岩,张蔷,马云青,李儒军,陶可,桂先革,李克鹏,张洪,林剑浩. 全髋关节置换术治疗脊柱骨骺发育不良患者Tönnis 3级髋关节骨关节炎的早期疗效[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(1): 175-182.
[7]	侯国进,周方,田耘,姬洪全,张志山,郭琰,吕扬,杨钟玮,张雅文. 后路短节段跨伤椎椎弓根螺钉固定治疗胸腰段爆裂骨折术后再发后凸的危险因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(1): 167-174.
[8]	徐贝宇,漆龙涛,王宇,李淳德,孙浩林,王诗军,于峥嵘,赵耀,刘龙龙. 短期头盆环牵引配合手术治疗重度脊柱畸形的临床疗效[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(5): 875-880.
[9]	崔云鹏,米川,王冰,潘元星,林云飞,施学东. 化脓性脊柱炎患者病原菌培养结果的影响因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(6): 1042-1047.
[10]	刘蕊, 孙琳, 李常虹, 翟佳羽, 刘湘源. 强直性脊柱炎的脊柱手术原因分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(5): 835-839.
[11]	毕永祥，肖民辉，张宁南，李晓云，毛晓鹏，张科，章卓睿，赵良运. 小鼠不同部位体内前列腺癌骨转移模型的建立及方法改进[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(4): 590-596.
[12]	崔云鹏，米川，施学东，王冰，潘元星，林云飞. 培养阴性化脓性脊柱炎患者的临床特征及预后[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(2): 226-230.
[13]	全立新，安慧霞，王东信. 右美托咪啶复合七氟醚对儿童脊柱侧弯矫形术唤醒试验的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(5): 855-859.
[14]	李炳艳，耿志宇，王东信. 右美托咪定复合丙泊酚全麻对骨科腰椎手术患者术后恢复的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(3): 529-533.
[15]	李宏，李淳德，邑晓东，刘洪，卢海霖，王宇. 手术治疗退变性腰椎侧凸5年以上随访研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(2): 250-256.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Items	Minimally invasive spine surgery (n=12)
Gender
Female	3
Male	9
Age/years, ${\bar x}$±s	65.1±2.9
Primary tumor
Renal	3
Lung	3
Prostate	2
Multiple myeloma	2
Uroepithelium	1
Esophageal	1
Bilsky compression grade
1c	3
2	8
3	1
ASIA grade
D	1
E	4
Lesion locate below L₁	7
Location of the lesion
Lumbar	7
Thoracic	5
Tomita score, ${\bar x}$±s	6.0±0.6
SINS score, ${\bar x}$±s	10.3±0.3
Karnofsky score, ${\bar x}$±s	59.2±1.9
ECOG grade, ${\bar x}$±s	2.3±0.2
VAS, ${\bar x}$±s	7.8±0.2

Items	Minimally invasive spine surgery (n=12)
Operative time/min	247.0±14.6
Tumors originating from the renal	282.7±33.7
Others	235.1±15.0
Estimated blood loss/mL	804.2±222.3
Tumors originating from the renal	1 900.0±458.3
Others	438.9±79.8
Number of patients transfused	10 (83.3%)
Blood transfusion/mL	500.0±100.0
Tumors originating from the renal	666.7±352.8
Others	444.5±80.1
Perioperative complications
Dural injury	2 (16.7%)
Urinary tract infection	0
Deep vein thrombosis	0
Pneumonia	0
Screw malposition	0
Wound problem	0
Total amount of drainage/mL
All patients	240.8±79.3
Patients without dural injury	127.5±24.4
Postoperative drainage tube removal/d	3.2±0.3
Postoperative hospital stay/d	7.8±0.8

Items	Minimally invasive spine surgery (n=12)
Overall survival/months, ${\bar x}$±s	13.6±2.4
Screw displacement	2 (16.7%)
ASIA grade
D	0
E	5
Lesion locate below L₁	7
Subsequent treatment
Targeted therapy	4
Systemic therapy	4
Radiotherapy	2
None	2
Number of deaths	3 (25%)

Items	Minimally invasive spine surgery (n=12)
VAS, ${\bar x}$±s
Preoperation	7.1±0.2
Discharge	2.6±0.1^*
3 months postoperation	2.3±0.1^*
6 months postoperation	2.8±0.4^*
Karnofsky score, ${\bar x}$±s
Preoperation	59.2±1.9
3 months postoperation	75.0±1.9^*
6 months postoperation	74.2±3.1^*
ECOG grade, ${\bar x}$±s
Preoperation	2.3±0.2
3 months postoperation	1.7±0.1^*
6 months postoperation	1.7±0.2^*