Open Access

Minimal access versus open spinal surgery in treating painful spine metastasis: a systematic review

  • Zuozhang Yang1Email author,
  • Yihao Yang1,
  • Ya Zhang1,
  • Zhaoxin Zhang1,
  • Yanjin Chen1,
  • Yan Shen1,
  • Lei Han1,
  • Da Xu1 and
  • Hongpu Sun1
Contributed equally
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201513:68

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0468-y

Received: 6 July 2014

Accepted: 17 January 2015

Published: 21 February 2015

Abstract

Study design

The study design of this paper is a systematic review of literature published in the recent 10 years.

Objective

It is the objective of this paper to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of minimal access (MIS) spinal surgery and open spinal surgery for treating painful spine metastasis.

Methods

Two research questions below were determined through a consensus among a panel of spine experts. A systematic review of literature on spinal surgery was conducted by searching PubMed with a combination of keywords including “metastatic”, “metastasis”, “metastases”, “spinal”, and “spine”. Independent reviewers selected the articles for analysis after screening the titles, abstracts, and full texts, then extracted data and graded the quality of each paper according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Specific clinical questions were as follows:
  1. 1.

    In patients with spine metastatic disease, what is the impact of different surgical approaches (MIS versus open) on pain relief and functional outcome?

     
  2. 2.

    In patients with metastatic disease, what is the impact of different surgical approaches (MIS versus open) on local recurrence, survive rate, and complication?

     

Results

A total of 1,076 abstracts were identified using various keywords. 5 prospective (level II) and 12 retrospective articles (level III) were eligible for inclusion, involving a total of 979 cases of spine metastasis. There were 345 cases in 8 studies regarding the clinical evaluation of MIS spinal surgery and 634 cases in 9 studies regarding the clinical evaluation of open spinal surgery for spine metastasis.

Conclusion

Both open spinal surgery and MIS seem to achieve the improvement of pain and neurological dysfunction through decompression and stabilization for patients with spine metastasis, but open surgery may involve more major complications with a trend of lower survival rates and higher recurrence rates compared to MIS.

Keywords

Minimal access Open spinal surgery Spine metastasis Systematic review

Review

Introduction

About 10% of cancer patients develop metastases in the spine [1]. The most common site of metastasis in the spine is the thoracic spine (50% to 60% of all metastases), followed by the lumbar (30% to 35%) and cervical spines (10% to 15%) [2-4]. Vertebral metastasis is one of the most serious life-threatening diseases [5]. About one third of patients with spinal metastases become symptomatic, which means intractable pain, neurological deficits, and/or biomechanical instability requiring surgical treatment [3,6].

These nonsurgical methods, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy, were commonly used for the management of vertebral metastatic disease, which have been proven to be effective in halting the osteolytic process and reversing the neurological compromise [7]. However, these modalities are unable to provide stability to an instable spinal column and also unable to be expected to relieve pain and spinal cord compression. In these cases, surgery is the best method for the resolution of intractable pain, neurological compromise, and overt or impending spinal instability in patients with spinal metastases. The primary goal of the surgery is to improve patients’ quality of life by providing pain relief, maintaining or improving neurological function, and restoring the structural integrity of the spinal column [8].

Stabilization of the spine is often necessary as extensive lesions may cause spinal instability by erosion of the normal bony structures. The most efficacious therapy for restoring spinal instability is reconstructive surgical intervention. Unfortunately, lots of patients are not considered as candidates for conventional surgery intervention due to neoplasm-associated comorbidities such as malnourishment and a weak immune system that make amounts of surgical procedures unfeasible [9]. However, these patients can be managed with vertebral augmentation, since it can provide some degree of restabilization [10].

Vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty, which involves the percutaneous injection of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement into a collapsed vertebral body, is a currently available minimally invasive spine surgery for palliative treatment. Poor surgical candidates with disabling pain secondary to a pathologic thoracic or lumbar vertebral body fracture without epidural compression are ideal candidates for these procedures [11]. The two procedures have been shown to relieve pain effectively to improve the quality of life, and they can be used as effective palliative treatment even for patients whose general condition is quite poor, with decreased pain, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stays [12]. On the other hand, their putative benefits with regard to spinal stability and neurological function, as well as their risks affecting their overall survival, have not yet been adequately documented by clinical studies because of limitations such as insufficient spinal cord decompression and stabilizing the vertebral column.

Despite numerous reports on open spinal surgery in treating painful spine metastasis, there exist no randomized controlled comparisons of clinical efficacy and safety between open and minimal access (MIS) procedures. In addition, due to the heterogeneity of study designs, inconsistent reporting of complications, and the use of different grading scales for pain and functional outcomes, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis using the prospective and retrospective studies. Therefore, we endeavored to perform a quantitative systematic review of the current literature published in the recent 10 years to evaluate the clinical efficacy between MIS and open spinal surgery in patients with spinal metastases. A secondary aim was to compare complication rates between MIS and open spinal surgery.

Materials and methods

Two clinically relevant questions below were determined through a consensus among a panel of spine oncology experts (the Spine Oncology Study Group), and a systematic review of related literature published in the recent 10 years was conducted using PubMed. Specific clinical questions were as follows:
  1. 1.

    In patients with metastatic disease, what is the impact of different surgical approaches (MIS versus open) on alterations of pain and neurologic function?

     
  2. 2.

    In patients with metastatic disease, what is the impact of different surgical approaches (MIS versus open) on local recurrence, survive rate, and complication?

     

Search criteria

We used the search terms that included “spin*”, “metasta*”, and “surg*” to searched literature from PubMed. The following terms would be contained: “metastatic”, “metastasis”, “metastases”, “spinal”, “spine”, “surgery”, and “surgical”.

Criteria for possible inclusion are as follows: 1) articles published in the recent 10 years, 2) all articles in English or with an English translation, 3) articles with 20 or more subjects, 4) adult age group (18 years and older), 5) articles describing surgical treatment of spinal metastatic cancer, and 6) articles evaluating the alterations of pain and neurologic function postoperatively. Exclusion criteria include the following: 1) primary tumors, 2) intradural tumors, 3) pediatric age group, 4) articles with fewer than 20 subjects, and 5) articles with nonhomogeneous pathology (e.g., trauma and primary tumors in the same series).

Studies were reviewed using a standardized data collection form. The type of study (prospective or retrospective) was noted. Data including surgery technique, the total number of patients, and the type of tumors were totally collected. The methods of pre- and postoperative clinical evaluations with respect to pain and functional outcome were also recorded. All temporary and permanent complications were collected, including major and minor complications. To avoid duplicate records of patients’ data, each group or institution was limited to one study in the systematic review. Some authors were contacted directly to clarify certain aspects of their studies.

The quality of evidence for each article was evaluated as high, moderate, low, or very low. The results of the systematic review and ratings of the evidence for each article were determined by a multidisciplinary, international group of spine oncology surgeons, oncologists, and methodologists (Spine Oncology Study Group). The group then went through a consensus-based decision-making process using a modified Delphi technique to arrive at treatment recommendations related to the key clinical questions. This process and the strength of the recommendation were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method [13,14]. These articles were evaluated independently by the authors according to the GRADE criteria.

Result

A total of 1,076 abstracts were identified using various keywords. All abstracts were screened, and 1,013 articles were excluded as obviously unrelated. The full texts of 63 papers were screened and 17 papers were identified to meet the inclusion criteria, including 5 prospective (level II) [15-19] and 12 retrospective articles (level III) [20-31] involving 979 cases of spine metastasis. The details of article selection were presented in Figure 1. There were 345 cases in 8 studies regarding the clinical evaluation of MIS spinal surgery and 634 cases in 9 studies regarding the clinical evaluation of open spinal surgery for spine metastasis (Table 1). In one study, the primary cancer was breast cancer, whereas in other studies were a mixed group such as lung cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer.
Figure 1

Flow diagram showing identification of studies included in the review.

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

Study

Year

Type of study

Quality

Number of Patients

Mean age

Procedure

Primary

Outcome

Follow-up

Minimal

         

Pizzoli et al. [20]

2009

Retrospective

Very low

39

NA

PVP with PMMA

Mixed

VAS, mobility, analgesic use

NA

Chen et al. [21]

2009

Retrospective

Very low

31

67

PVP with PMMA

Mixed

VAS, Karnofsky scale

12 months

Qian et al. [22]

2011

Retrospective

Very low

48

68.5

Kyphoplasty

Mixed

VAS, ODI, SF-36, vertebral body height variation

24 months

Farrokhi et al. [15]

2012

Prospective

Very low

25

53.5

PVP with PMMA

Mixed

VAS

NA

Tseng et al. [23]

2008

Retrospective

Very low

57

65.18

PVP with PMMA

Mixed

VAS, amounts of nonnarcotic and narcotic analgesic

6 months

Yang et al. [16]

2009

Prospective

Very low

40

57.63

PVP with PMMA

Mixed

VAS, KPS

1 year

Pflugmacher et al. [17]

2008

Prospective

Very low

65

66

Balloon kyphoplasty

Mixed

VAS, ODI

24 months

Anselmetti et al. [18]

2013

Prospective

Very low

40

66.8

PVP with PEEK

Mixed

VAS, ODI

10 months

Open

Holman et al. [24]

2005

Retrospective

Very low

139

55

Posterior/anterior/combined tumor resection, decompression, instrumentation, fusion

Mixed

VAS, Frankel grades

12 months

Chong et al. [25]

2012

Retrospective

Very low

105

58.3

Single-stage posterior decompression and stabilization

Mixed

VAS, Frankel grade, KPS

48 months

Eid et al. [26]

2011

Retrospective

Very low

45

53

Circumferential decompression and fusion by means of PTA

Mixed

VAS, ASIA grades

13 months

Liang et al. [27]

2013

Retrospective

Very low

92

NA

Posterior/anterior/combined tumor resection, decompression, instrumentation, fusion

Mixed

VAS, Frankel grades, Karnofsky score, Tokuhashi scores

22 months

Wonik Cho et al. [28]

2012

Retrospective

Very low

46

56.4

ACF, ACF and PF, DLF, DL

Mixed

VAS, JOAS, Tomita score

39 months

Walter et al. [29]

2012

Retrospective

Very low

57

58.6

Posterolateral approach for decompression combined with posterior instrumentation

Mixed

VAS, Frankel grades, ECOG grades, TPS

46 months

Dae-Chul Cho et al. [30]

2009

Retrospective

Very low

21

56.6

Posterolateral transpedicular approach with posterior instrumentation

Mixed

VAS, Frankel grades, and ECOG grades

13 months

Shehadi et al. [31]

2007

Retrospective

Very low

87

53

Posterior/anterior/combined tumor resection, decompression, instrumentation, fusion

Breast cancer

VAS, Frankel grades

13 months

Street et al. [19]

2007

Prospective

Very low

42

56.04

Single-stage posterolateral vertebrectomy

Mixed

VAS, ECOG grading

NA

PVP percutaneous vertebroplasty, PMMA polymethyl methacrylate, PEEK polyetheretherketone, VAS visual analog scale, ODI Oswestry Disability Index, JOAS Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, KPS Karnofsky performance scores, ASIA American Spinal Injury Association, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, PTA posterolateral transpedicular approach, TPS Tomita’s prognostic score, ACF anterior corpectomy and fusion, ACF and PF ACF and posterior fixation, DLF decompressive laminectomy posterior fixation, DL decompressive laminectomy, NA not available, SF-36 Short Form 36 Physical Function.

Among these articles regarding open spinal surgery, three studies were performed with several kinds of approaches such as posterior, anterior, and combined approach to remove tumors in spines. Studies regarding MIS spinal surgery were performed primarily with vertebroplasty whereas two studies [22,17] were performed with kyphoplasty.

Pain alleviation was crucially important for the therapy of spine metastases to improve quality of life in patients. A visual analog scale was available for each study to evaluate the effect of pain relief in patients with spine metastases. In all, one study did not display the visual analog scale (VAS) score in detail [26], and prospective studies had especially detailed pre- and postoperative VAS score. It was found that both MIS and open spinal surgery were efficient in pain alleviation, and most of the studies reported statistically significant improvement (Table 2).Given the high rates of pain alleviation, the results suggest that both MIS and open spinal surgery are efficacious in respect to pain alleviation through decompression and stabilization.
Table 2

VAS scores in included studies

Study

Pre

Post

P value

Follow-up

Pain relief rate

Minimal

     

Pizzoli et al. [20]

8.62 (±0.71)

2.84 (±1.36)

NA

24 h

98%

Chen et al. [21]

8.9 (±0.93)

2.6 (±1.71)

P < 0.001

NA

94%

Qian et al. [22]

7.4 (±2.1)

3.8 ( ±1.6)

P < 0.001

24 h

NA

  

3.2 (±1.0)

P < 0.001

6 months

NA

Farrokhi et al. [15]

8.23 (NA)

2.12 (NA)

P ≤ 0.05

24 h

NA

  

1 (NA)

P ≤ 0.05

2 months

NA

Tseng et al. [23]

8.1 (±0.67)

3.8 (±1.9)

P < 0.015

24 h

NA

  

2.8 (±2.0)

P < 0.001

6 months

NA

Yang et al. [16]

8.78 (±0.54)

5.41 (±0.94)

P = 0.032

6 months

95.00%

Pflugmacher et al. [17]

8.3 (±15)

3.3 (±9)

P < 0.0001

3 months

NA

Anselmetti et al. [18]

10 (±1)

1 (±0.75)

P < 0.001

1 month

100.00%

Open

     

Holman et al. [24]

7 (NA)

2 (NA)

P < 0.001

1 month

94%

Chong et al. [25]

6.5 (±1.7)

3.4 (±1.6)

NA

2 weeks

NA

Eid et al. [26]

NA

NA

NA

1 month

96%

Liang et al. [27]

6 (NA)

2 (NA)

P < 0.001

12 months

90%

Wonik Cho et al. [28]

7.86 (±1.05)

4.48 (±2.09)

P = 0.001

NA

NA

Walter et al. [29]

6.9 (±1.6)

3.1 (±1.0)

P < 0.001

1 month

87.70%

Dae-Chul Cho et al. [30]

6.82 (±2.13)

3.61 (±1.01)

NA

1 month

NA

Shehadi et al. [31]

6 (NA)

2 (NA)

P < 0.001

1 month

NA

Street et al. [19]

7.94 (NA)

4.3 (NA)

P < 0.001

NA

NA

Each study assessed postoperative neurologic function, and multiple methods for evaluating neurologic function were included, such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scale, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Frankel scale, the Karnofsky scale and American Spinal Injury Association grades, the Short Form 36 Physical Function, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, and the Karnofsky performance scores. The neurologic function was not assessed in two studies (Farrokhi et al. [15] and Tseng et al. [23]) regarding MIS surgery. Only nine studies provided pre- and postoperative neurologic function score, and neurologic function was statistically significantly improved (Table 3). Other studies without detailed data also showed that MIS and open spinal surgery were successful in improving physical function.
Table 3

Neurologic function evaluation in included studies

Study

Method

Scale best to worst

Functional outcome

P value

Minimal

    

Pizzoli et al. [20]

Mobility

1 to 4

Preoperative: 3.25 ± 0.59, postoperative: 1.24 ± 0.64

P < 0.001

Chen et al. [21]

Karnofsky scale

100 to 0

Preoperative: 50 ± 10.65, postoperative: 70 ± 3.59

NA

Qian et al. [22]

ODI

0 to 100

Preoperative: 71.5 ± 16.7, postoperative: 29.5 ± 10.2

P < 0.001

 

SF-36

100 to 0

Preoperative: 34.3 ± 10.8, postoperative: 54.5 ± 10.5

P < 0.05

Yang et al. [16]

Karnofsky scale

100 to 0

Preoperative: 69.4 ± 8.3, postoperative: 80.3 ± 7.2

P = 0.002

Pflugmacher et al. [17]

ODI

0 to 100

Preoperative: 81 ± 8, postoperative: 39 ± 7

P < 0.0001

Anselmetti et al. [18]

ODI

0 to 100

Preoperative: 82.2, postoperative: 4.1

P < 0.001

Open

    

Holman et al. [24]

Frankel grade

E to A

46/112 (41%) improved at least one Frankel grade, 20/112 (18%) regained ambulation, seven (5%) worsened

P < 0.05

Chong et al. [25]

Frankel grade

E to A

21/105 (20%) improved at least one Frankel grade, 21/105 (48%) regained ambulation, 6/105 (5.7%) worsened

P < 0.05

Eid et al. [26]

ASIA grade

E to A

23/45 (51%) improved one or more grades, 6/45 (20%) retained their preoperative grade, one (3%) experienced worsening

P > 0.05

Liang et al. [27]

Karnofsky scores

100 to 0

The median postoperative Karnofsky scores increased from 60 (range, 40 to 80) to 70 (range, 0 to 80)

P < 0.001

 

Frankel grade

E to A

78% improved 1.2 grades at average

NA

Wonik Cho et al. [28]

JOAS

10 to 0

Preoperative: 13.11 ± 2.75, postoperative: 15.17 ± 2.09

P = 0.001

Walter et al. [29]

Frankel grade

E to A

13 (22.8%) patients improved, 43 (75.5%) had a stable neurological status, one single patient (1.8%) experienced worsening

NA

 

ECOG grade

0 to 5

Preoperative: 2.0 ± 1.1, postoperative: 1.7 ± 1.3

P < 0.05

Dae-Chul Cho et al. [30]

Frankel grade

E to A

7/22 (33.3%) improved, 14/21 (66.7%) had a stable neurological status

NA

 

ECOG grade

0 to 5

8 had an improved ECOG grade, and 12 showed no change, 1 experienced worsening

NA

Shehadi et al. [31]

Frankel grade

E to A

85% maintained or improved their Frankel scores

NA

Street et al. [19]

ECOG grade

0 to 5

Preoperative: 2.5 ± 1.0, postoperative: 1.6 ± 0.75

NA

ODI Oswestry Disability Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, NA not available, SF-36 Short Form 36 Physical Function.

It is reported that decreased complication rates are considered to be one of the advantages of MIS spinal surgery. This was confirmed by the evidences we provided in this systematic review. There are no major complications for MIS spinal surgery except in two studies [20,23], whereas six studies regarding open spinal surgery reported major complications with a trend of lower survive rates and higher recurrence rates (Table 4).
Table 4

Serious complications in included studies (excluding deaths)

Study

Recurrence

Survival

Complications

Minimal

   

Pizzoli et al. [20]

5.1%

NA

Three major complications (one pneumothorax and two symptomatic leakages) (2.8%), two minor complications (cement pulmonary embolism) (1.8%)

Chen et al. [21]

NA

74% at 6 months, 39% at 12 months

No major complication

Qian et al. [22]

No

81% at 2 years

No major complications, cement leakage (18.6%)

Farrokhi et al. [15]

NA

NA

Cement leakage (44%)

Tseng et al. [23]

NA

Two patients died during hospitalization

Cement extravasation (17.9% minor extravasation, 3.9% major extravasation)(21.8%)

Yang et al. [16]

No

80.0% at 1 year

Seven paravertebral cement leakage (17.5%)

Pflugmacher et al. [17]

 

80.0% at 1 year, 66% at 2 years

Cement leakage (12.1%), adjacent incident fracture (8%)

Anselmetti et al. [18]

20%

85% at 3 months

Cement leakage (16.3%)

Open

   

Holman et al. [24]

8%

Mean survival was 14.8 months, 67% at 0.5 months, 54% at 1 month, 23% at 5 years

Major complications (18%) and minor complications (21%)

Chong et al. [25]

NA

Median survival was 6.0 months, 34% at 1 year, 14% at 2 years survival rates

Surgical complications occurred in patients (10%), no mechanical failure

Eid et al. [26]

No

Mean survival was 13 months

Unstable (15.5%), wound infection (15.5%), hematoma (4%) and deep vein thrombosis (2%)

Liang et al. [27]

NA

The median survival was 15 months, 61% at 1 year, and 35% at 3 years

Major complications (23%)

Wonik Cho et al. [28]

39.10%

Mean survival was 11.82 months, 44.4% at 6 months, 35.6% at 12 months, and 19.0% at 24 months

Two operation site infection, two pneumonia, one esophageal fistula after anterior approach (10.9%)

Walter et al. [29]

1.70%

Mean survival was 11.4 months, 42.1% at 1 year

Superficial wound infections and one seroma (5.3%)

Dae-Chul Cho et al. [30]

14%

Mean survival was 8.9 months

One wound infection and one wound dehiscence (9.5% )

Shehadi et al. [31]

11.50%

Median survival was 21 months, 62% at 1 year, 33% at 3 years, and 24% at 5 years

Major complications by surgical approach (17%)

Street et al. [19]

2.30%

75% at 6 months and 50% at 12 months

Major complications (26%)

NA not available.

Discussion

For most of the patients with spinal metastasis, the treatment is largely palliative and aims to achieve relief of pain and regain function, thus improving the quality of the life of the patients. Because of the immunocompromised status, poor nutrition, and comorbid medical conditions, many patients with spinal metastasis cannot tolerate the curative surgical methods. In recent years, more and more minimally invasive spinal interventions are reasonable alternatives to open spinal surgery for treating spinal metastatic tumors. These procedures can contribute to less soft tissue trauma, lower blood loss, and shorter hospitalization time. MIS spinal surgery rarely interferes with the adjuvant treatments. The overall morbidity is considerably lower in comparison to conventional spine surgery.

Despite this evolution, questions surrounding the effectiveness of MIS and its comparability to open spinal surgery in terms of pain and neurologic function remain unanswered. A direct comparison of clinical efficiency and safety between open and MIS spinal surgery for spinal metastasis has never been conducted. Given the lack of comparison studies, we aimed to compare the effect of pain alleviation and functional improvement between open and MIS spinal surgery by reviewing published studies in a quantitative manner. Our results suggest that open or MIS spinal surgery is likely to achieve the improvement in pain and neurological dysfunction for spinal metastasis, but open surgery seems to involve more major complications with a trend of lower survival rates and higher recurrence rates compared to MIS surgery.

There are few comparison studies between MIS and open spinal surgery. Huang et al. [32] performed a direct retrospective comparison of MOT, MBL, LOS, and CR for MIS versus open spinal surgery for thoracic spine metastasis, and no significant difference was found. However, the amount of patients requiring at least a 2-day admission in the open group was significantly larger than that of the MIS group (open: 88% versus MIS: 6.9%). If there is truth that there is no significant difference in the functional outcome between the MIS and open group, the possible reason is that the potential benefit of MIS is counteracted by the more complicated nature of patients with metastatic spine disease during operation [33]. Payer et al. [34] also demonstrated that mean blood loss, operative time, and complication rates in spinal tumor patients were higher than that of the fracture patients with anterior approach.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we performed the systematic review based on literature published in the recent 10 years to possibly compare clinical efficiency and complication rate between open and MIS spinal surgery for spine metastasis and found that both open spinal surgery and MIS seem to achieve the improvement of pain and neurological dysfunction through decompression and stabilization, but open surgery may involve more major complications with a trend of lower survival rates and higher recurrence rates compared to MIS. However, it is necessary to perform a controlled study to compare the clinical efficiency between the two procedures for spine metastasis in the future.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by grants (no. 81260322/H1606, no.81372322/H1606 and 81460440) from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, a grant (no. 2012FB163) from the Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province, a grant (no. 2014FB059) from the Joint Special Funds for the Department of Science and Technology of Yunnan Province-Kunming Medical University, and a grant (no. D-201242) from the specialty fund of high-level talents medical personnel training of Yunnan province.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Research Center of Yunnan Province, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University (Tumor Hospital of Yunnan Province)

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(2):71–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartanusz V, Porchet F. Current strategies in the management of spinal metastatic disease. Swiss Surg. 2003;9(2):55–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Sciubba DM, Gokaslan ZL, Suk I, Suki D, Maldaun MV, McCutcheon IE, et al. Positive and negative prognostic variables for patients undergoing spine surgery for metastatic breast disease. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(10):1659–67.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Moulding HD, Bilsky MH. Metastases to the craniovertebral junction. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3):A113–A8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Qureshi A, Shams U, Akhter A, Riaz S. Metastatic bone disease as seen in our clinical practice-experience at a tertiary care cancer center in Pakistan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(9):4369–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ibrahim A, Crockard A, Antonietti P, Boriani S, Bünger C, Gasbarrini A, et al. Does spinal surgery improve the quality of life for those with extradural (spinal) osseous metastases? An international multicenter prospective observational study of 223 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8(3):271–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ryken TC, Eichholz KM, Gerszten PC, Welch WC, Gokaslan ZL, Resnick DK. Evidence-based review of the surgical management of vertebral column metastatic disease. Neurosurg Focus. 2003;15(5):1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman R. Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev. 2001;27(3):165–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Sciubba DM, Petteys RJ, Dekutoski MB, Fisher CG, Fehlings MG, Ondra SL, et al. Diagnosis and management of metastatic spine disease: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(1):94–108.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Harel R, Angelov L. Spine metastases: current treatments and future directions. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(15):2696–707.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Klimo P, Schmidt MH. Surgical management of spinal metastases. Oncologist. 2004;9(2):188–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lemke DM, Hacein-Bey L. Metastatic compression fractures-vertebroplasty for pain control. J Neurosci Nurs. 2003;35(1):50–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brozek J, Akl E, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Allergy. 2009;64(5):669.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Schunemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, Ernst A, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(5):605–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrokhi M, Nouraei H, Kiani A. The efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty in pain relief in patients with pathological vertebral fractures due to metastatic spinal tumors. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2012;14(9):523.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Yang Z, Yang D, Xie L, Sun Y, Huang Y, Sun H, et al. Treatment of metastatic spinal tumors by percutaneous vertebroplasty versus percutaneous vertebroplasty combined with interstitial implantation of 125I seeds. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(10):1142–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Pflugmacher R, Taylor R, Agarwal A, Melcher I, Disch A, Haas N, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of metastatic disease of the spine: a 2-year prospective evaluation. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(8):1042–8.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Anselmetti GC, Manca A, Tutton S, Chiara G, Kelekis A, Facchini FR, et al. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation assisted by PEEK implant in painful osteolytic vertebral metastasis involving the vertebral wall: experience on 40 patients. Pain Physician. 2013;16:E397–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Street J, Fisher C, Sparkes J, Boyd M, Kwon B, Paquette S, et al. Single-stage posterolateral vertebrectomy for the management of metastatic disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a prospective study of an evolving surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(7):509–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pizzoli AL, Brivio LR, Caudana R, Vittorini E. Percutaneous CT-guided vertebroplasty in the management of osteoporotic fractures and dorsolumbar metastases. Orthop Clin N Am. 2009;40(4):449–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen K-Y, Ma H-I, Chiang Y-H. Percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty with polymethyl methacrylate for pathological fracture of the spine. J Clin Neurosci. 2009;16(10):1300–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Qian Z, Sun Z, Yang H, Gu Y, Chen K, Wu G. Kyphoplasty for the treatment of malignant vertebral compression fractures caused by metastases. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(6):763–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Tseng Y-Y, Lo Y-L, Chen L-H, Lai P-L, Yang S-T. Percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty in the treatment of pain induced by metastatic spine tumor. Surg Neurol. 2008;70:S78–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Holman PJ, Suki D, McCutcheon I, Wolinsky J-P, Rhines LD, Gokaslan ZL. Surgical management of metastatic disease of the lumbar spine: experience with 139 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(5):550–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Chong S, Shin S-H, Yoo H, Lee SH, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, et al. Single-stage posterior decompression and stabilization for metastasis of the thoracic spine: prognostic factors for functional outcome and patients' survival. The Spine Journal. 2012;12(12):1083–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Eid AS, Chang U-K. Anterior construct location following vertebral body metastasis reconstruction through a posterolateral transpedicular approach: does it matter? Clin Art J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(6):734–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Liang T, Wan Y, Zou X, Peng X, Liu S. Is surgery for spine metastasis reasonable in patients older than 60 years? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2013;471(2):628–39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Cho W, Chang U-K. Neurological and survival outcomes after surgical management of subaxial cervical spine metastases. Spine. 2012;37(16):E969–E77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Walter J, Reichart R, Waschke A, Kalff R, Ewald C. Palliative considerations in the surgical treatment of spinal metastases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2012;138(2):301–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Cho D-C, Sung J-K. Palliative surgery for metastatic thoracic and lumbar tumors using posterolateral transpedicular approach with posterior instrumentation. Surg Neurol. 2009;71(4):424–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shehadi JA, Sciubba DM, Suk I, Suki D, Maldaun MV, McCutcheon IE, et al. Surgical treatment strategies and outcome in patients with breast cancer metastatic to the spine: a review of 87 patients. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(8):1179–92.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Huang T-J, Hsu RW-W, Li Y-Y, Cheng C-C. Minimal access spinal surgery (MASS) in treating thoracic spine metastasis. Spine. 2006;31(16):1860–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Sum CW, Liu HP. Complications in thoracoscopic spinal surgery: a study of 90 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc. 1999;13(4):346–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Payer M, Sottas C. Mini-open anterior approach for corpectomy in the thoracolumbar spine. Surg Neurol. 2008;69(1):25–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Yang et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement