Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) >
Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined expandable tubular retractor in the treatment of spinal metastases
Received date: 2020-10-22
Online published: 2023-06-12
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.
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 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.03.020
| 1 | Siegel RL , Miller KD , Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2019[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2019, 69 (1): 7- 34. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |