European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1455–1460 | Cite as

Bone marrow washout for multilevel vertebroplasty in multiple myeloma spinal involvement. Technical note.

  • Oded Hershkovich
  • Corrado LucantoniEmail author
  • Saurabh Kapoor
  • Bronek Boszczyk
Ideas and Technical Innovations



Vertebral involvement is found in a high percentage of multiple myeloma (MM) patients, often requiring multilevel surgical treatment to reduce pain and disability and to receive prompt access to oncological care. We describe the clinical use of washout technique for multilevel vertebroplasty in MM patients with diffuse spinal involvement. The aim of this technique is to reduce the risk of pulmonary fat embolism after cement injection and possibly to increment the amount of cement and treated levels in one surgical stage.


Three patients were treated with the washout technique prior to multilevel vertebroplasty for thoracolumbar diffuse spinal involvement in multiple myeloma. We describe the surgical technique and review the pertinent literature.


The technique is clinically safe and effective in reducing pain, without significant complications. Two six-level vertebroplasties were performed in one case, allowing a larger amount of cement injected and a prompt start of the oncological treatment.


Multilevel vertebroplasty in MM patients with diffuse spinal involvement carries the advantages of reducing pain, avoid repeated surgeries and faster return to oncological regimen. Cardiovascular complications, including pulmonary embolism, are rare but can have fatal consequences. It is mainly due to bone marrow mobilization during cement injection and the risk increases with the amount of cement injected and the number of treated levels. Despite multilevel treatment at the same stage, we did not observe any significant complication in our series. Further studies are needed to confirm the preliminary results of this technique.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under electronic supplementary material.


Multiple myeloma Vertebroplasty Fat pulmonary embolism Vertebral washout Lavage 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5804_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (585 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 585 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gerszten PC, Welch WC (2000) Current surgical management of metastatic spinal disease. Oncology 14(7):1013–1024. discussion 1024, 1029–1030 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khan O, Brinjikji W, Kallmes DF (2014) Vertebral augmentation in patients with multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of published case series. Am J Neuroradiol 35(1):207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Erdem E, Samant R, Malak S, Culp W, Brown A, Peterson L, Lensing S, Barlogie B (2013) Vertebral augmentation in the treatment of pathologic compression fractures in 792 patients with multiple myeloma. Leukemia 27(12):2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aebli N, Krebs J, Schwenke D, Davis G, Theis J-C (2003) Pressurization of vertebral bodies during vertebroplasty causes cardiovascular complications: an experimental study in sheep. Spine 28(14):1513–1519Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hussein M, Vrionis F, Allison R, Berenson J, Berven S, Erdem E, Giralt S, Jagannath S, Kyle R, LeGrand S (2008) The role of vertebral augmentation in multiple myeloma: international Myeloma Working Group Consensus Statement. Leukemia 22(8):1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benneker LM, Heini PF, Suhm N, Gisep A (2008) The effect of pulsed jet lavage in vertebroplasty on injection forces of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement, material distribution, and potential fat embolism: a cadaver study. Spine 33(23):E906–E910Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boger A, Benneker LM, Krebs J, Boner V, Heini PF, Gisep A (2009) The effect of pulsed jet lavage in vertebroplasty on injection forces of PMMA bone cement: an animal study. Eur Spine J 18(12):1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoppe S, Elfiky T, Keel MJB, Aghayev E, Ecker TM, Benneker LM (2016) Lavage prior to vertebral augmentation reduces the risk for cement leakage. Eur Spine J 25:3463–3469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benneker LM, Krebs J, Boner V, Boger A, Hoerstrup S, Heini PF, Gisep A (2010) Cardiovascular changes after PMMA vertebroplasty in sheep: the effect of bone marrow removal using pulsed jet-lavage. Eur Spine J 19(11):1913–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boszczyk BM, Bierschneider M, Hauck S, Beisse R, Potulski M, Jaksche H (2005) Transcostovertebral kyphoplasty of the mid and high thoracic spine. Eur Spine J 14(10):992–999. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roodman G (2009) Pathogenesis of myeloma bone disease. Leukemia 23(3):435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Maldague BE, Michaux L, Laterre E, Michaux J-L, Ferrant A, Malghem J (1997) Vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma. Part I. Distribution and appearance at MR imaging. Radiology 204(1):195–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen L-H, Hsieh M-K, Niu C-C, Fu T-S, Lai P-L, Chen W-J (2012) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for pathological vertebral compression fractures secondary to multiple myeloma. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(6):759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gangi A, Guth S, Imbert JP, Marin H, Dietemann J-L (2003) Percutaneous vertebroplasty: indications, technique, and results. Radiographics 23(2):e10–e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Audat ZA, Hajyousef MH, Fawareh MD, Alawneh KM, Odat MA, Barbarawi MM, Alomari AA, Jahmani RA, Khatatbeh MA, Assmairan MA (2016) Comparison if the addition of multilevel vertebral augmentation to conventional therapy will improve the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 29(11):47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mellor A, Soni N (2001) Fat embolism. Anaesthesia 56(2):145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiles MD, Nowicki RW, Hancock SM, Boszczyk B (2009) Anaesthesia for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Curr Anaesth Crit Care 20(1):38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Syed MI, Jan S, Patel NA, Shaikh A, Marsh RA, Stewart RV (2006) Fatal fat embolism after vertebroplasty: identification of the high-risk patient. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27(2):343–345Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heini P, Orler R (2004) Vertebroplasty in severe osteoporosis. Technique and experience with multi-segment injection. Der Orthopade 33(1):22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katonis P, Hadjipavlou A, Souvatzis X, Tzermiadianos M, Alpantaki K, Simmons JW (2012) Respiratory effects, hemodynamic changes and cement leakage during multilevel cement balloon kyphoplasty. Eur Spine J 21(9):1860–1866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mailli L, Filippiadis DK, Brountzos EN, Alexopoulou E, Kelekis N, Kelekis A (2013) Clinical outcome and safety of multilevel vertebroplasty: clinical experience and results. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36(1):183–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang JJ, Zhou Y, Hu HY, Sun YJ, Wang YG, Gu YF, Wu CG, Shen Z, Yao Y (2017) Safety and efficacy of multilevel vertebroplasty for painful osteolytic spinal metastases: a single-centre experience. Eur Radiol 27(8):3436–3442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhan Y, Jiang J, Liao H, Tan H, Yang K (2017) Risk factors for cement leakage after vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty: a meta-analysis of published evidence. World Neurosurg 101:633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoppe S, Wangler S, Aghayev E, Gantenbein B, Boger A, Benneker LM (2016) Reduction of cement leakage by sequential PMMA application in a vertebroplasty model. Eur Spine J 25(11):3450–3455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohamed R, Silbermann C, Ahmari A, Bohner M, Becker S, Baroud G (2010) Cement filling control and bone marrow removal in vertebral body augmentation by unipedicular aspiration technique: an experimental study using leakage model. Spine 35(3):353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    La Maida GA, Giarratana LS, Acerbi A, Ferrari V, Mineo GV, Misaggi B (2012) Cement leakage: safety of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple myeloma vertebral lesions. Eur Spine J 21(1):61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Spinal Studies and SurgeryQueen’s Medical CentreNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations