Advertisement

Spine Surgery pp 429-436 | Cite as

Corpectomies and Osteotomies in the Upper Thoracic Spine and Cervicothoracic Region

  • Nils HechtEmail author
  • Marcus Czabanka
  • Peter Vajkoczy
Chapter

Abstract

Spine surgery in the upper thoracic and cervicothoracic region remains challenging due to difficult radiographic visualization and limited surgical accessibility. Although surgical strategies for treatment of severe deformities in this region might improve pain and disability, they remain complex and lack standardization. In particular for corpectomies and vertebral column reconstruction, approaches may be anterior, posterior or combined. Further, a variety of soft tissue releases and osteotomies ranging from simple facet release (Ponte or Smith Peterson Osteotomies) to vertebral column resection (VCR) may be applied for decompression and deformity correction. Additional variability exists in the use of an increasing array for anterior and posterior instrumentation that require experience and knowledge of 360-degree (360°) approaches, in addition to the number of vertebral levels that require instrumentation to ensure biomechanical stability. Against this background, the present chapter outlines surgical approaches to the upper thoracic and cervicothoracic region, recommended imaging as well as pitfalls that may be encountered when treating spinal instabilities in this region. Specifically, the aim of the presented cases is to outline:
  • Typical indications for corpectomies with vertebral body replacement

  • Pre-, intra- and postoperative imaging

  • Selection of anterior versus posterior versus combined approaches

References

  1. 1.
    Bakar D, Tanenbaum JE, Phan K, Alentado VJ, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, et al. Decompression surgery for spinal metastases: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41(2):E2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilsky MH, Boland P, Lis E, Raizer JJ, Healey JH. Single-stage posterolateral transpedicle approach for spondylectomy, epidural decompression, and circumferential fusion of spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(17):2240–9. discussion250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fehlings MG, Nater A, Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Arnold P, Dekutoski M, et al. Survival and clinical outcomes in surgically treated patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: results of the prospective Multicenter AOSpine study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(3):268–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher CG, Dipaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(22):E1221–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koller H, Schmoelz W, Zenner J, Auffarth A, Resch H, Hitzl W, et al. Construct stability of an instrumented 2-level cervical corpectomy model following fatigue testing: biomechanical comparison of circumferential antero-posterior instrumentation versus a novel anterior-only transpedicular screw-plate fixation technique. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(12):2848–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laufer I, Iorgulescu JB, Chapman T, Lis E, Shi W, Zhang Z, et al. Local disease control for spinal metastases following “separation surgery” and adjuvant hypofractionated or high-dose single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: outcome analysis in 186 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(3):207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Metcalfe S, Gbejuade H, Patel NR. The posterior transpedicular approach for circumferential decompression and instrumented stabilization with titanium cage vertebrectomy reconstruction for spinal tumors: consecutive case series of 50 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(16):1375–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Brien JR, Dmitriev AE, Yu W, Gelb D, Ludwig S. Posterior-only stabilization of 2-column and 3-column injuries at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(5):340–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):643–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quraishi NA, Rajagopal TS, Manoharan SR, Elsayed S, Edwards KL, Boszczyk BM. Effect of timing of surgery on neurological outcome and survival in metastatic spinal cord compression. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(6):1383–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith JS, Klineberg E, Shaffrey CI, Lafage V, Schwab FJ, Protopsaltis T, et al. Assessment of surgical treatment strategies for moderate to severe cervical spinal deformity reveals marked variation in approaches, osteotomies, and fusion levels. World Neurosurg. 2016;91:228–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations