Advertisement

Spine Surgery pp 523-531 | Cite as

Minimally Invasive (Long) Dorsal Instrumentation Including Augmentation for Metastasis

  • Ehab ShibanEmail author
  • Bernhard Meyer
Chapter

Abstract

The Spine is the most common osseous site for metastatic disease. In the past, because of the overall limited survival, a simple palliative approach was advocated for the majority of those patients. However, with the on-going improvements in oncology patients are now living much longer, therefore there have been a paradigm shift towards more aggressive treatment regimes. For spinal metastases with epidural compression standard of care has become decompression and instrumentation of the affected level. Thereby minimal invasive surgery (MIS) is being successfully utilized in order to reduce operative morbidity, hospital stay and soft tissue trauma. Thereby postoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy can be initiated more rapidly.

References

  1. 1.
    Berenson J, Pflugmacher R, Jarzem P, Zonder J, Schechtman K, Tillman JB et al. Cancer Patient Fracture Evaluation (CAFE) Investigators. Balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical fracture management for treatment of painful vertebral body compression fractures in patients with cancer: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(3):225–35. EBM 1b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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. EBM 2a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lau D, Chou D. Posterior thoracic corpectomy with cage reconstruction for metastatic spinal tumors: comparing the mini-open approach to the open approach. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(2):217–27. EBM 3b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miscusi M, Polli FM, Forcato S, Ricciardi L, Frati A, Cimatti M, De Martino L, Ramieri A, Raco A. 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(5):518–25. EBM 3b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moussazadeh N, Rubin DG, McLaughlin L, Lis E, Bilsky MH, Laufer I. Short-segment percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with cement augmentation for tumor-induced spinal instability. Spine J. 2015;15(7):1609–17. EBM 3b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. EBM 1b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Versteeg AL, Verlaan JJ, de Baat P, Jiya TU, Stadhouder A, Diekerhof CH, van Solinge GB, Oner FC. Complications after percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(7):2343–9. EBM 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zuckerman SL, Laufer I, Sahgal A, Yamada YJ, Schmidt MH, Chou D, Shin JH, Kumar N, Sciubba DM. When less is more: the indications for MIS techniques and separation surgery in metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 20):S246–53. EBM 2a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations