Download PDF
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2004; 142(4): 442-448
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-822796
Wirbelsäule

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Vergleich zwischen operativen und nicht-operativen Verfahren bei Wirbelsäulenmetastasen: Eine retrospektive Studie an 259 Patienten

Outcome of Surgical and Non-Surgical Treatment of Metastatic Tumors of the Spine: A Retrospective Study on 259 PatientsM. W. Kröber1 , T. Gühring1 , F. Unglaub1 , L. Bernd1 , D. Sabo1
  • 1Stiftung Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 September 2004 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Studienziel: Ziel dieser klinischen Studie war ein Vergleich zwischen operativen und konservativen Therapieoptionen bei Wirbelsäulenmetastasen. Methode: Hierzu wurden retrospektiv 259 Patienten mit metastatischen Tumoren der Wirbelsäule analysiert. Die evaluierten Parameter umfassten demographische Daten, Primärtumor, die Tumorlokalisation innerhalb der Wirbelsäule, operatives beziehungsweise konservatives Therapieregime, zusätzliche adjuvante systemische Therapie und das postoperative Outcome mit neurologischem Status. Ergebnisse: Die am häufigsten gestellte Indikation für ein operatives Vorgehen war eine Kombination zwischen neurologischen Ausfällen, pathologischer Wirbelkörperfraktur und Schmerzen (50 %). 69 % der Patienten wurden von dorsal operiert, 13 % über einen ventralen Zugang und 10 % über einen ventro-dorsalen Zugang. Das postoperative Resultat zeigte eine Verbesserung der neurologischen Symptomatik bei dorsalem Zugang in 29 % der Fälle, in 53 % bei ventralem Zugang, und in 15 % bei ventro-dorsalem Zugang. Diskussion: Diese Untersuchung zeigt, dass bei der Indikationsstellung zur Operation die exakte Lokalisation der Metastase innerhalb der Wirbelsäule, die klinischen Symptome und die Prognose der zugrunde liegenden Krankheit genau berücksichtigt werden müssen. Eine regelhafte Korrelation zwischen operativem Zugang und Verbesserung der neurologischen Situation lässt sich durch die vorgelegten Daten nicht belegen.

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients with metastatic tumors of the spine after surgical and non-surgical treatment. Methods: The charts of 259 patients with metastatic tumors of the spine were reviewed retrospectively to define predictors of outcome. Our data included patient demographics, primary tumor, location of the metastatic tumor within the spine, indication for surgical or non-surgical treatment, type of surgical and non-surgical intervention, post-treatment outcome in terms of neurology, use of adjuvant radiation therapy or systemic therapy. Results: The most frequent indication for surgical treatment was the combination of neurological deficit (ND), pathological vertebral fracture, and pain (50 %). Surgical intervention was performed by the posterior approach in 67 %, by the anterior approach in 13 %, and by an anterior/posterior approach in 10 %. The post-surgical outcome, depending on the type of surgical approach in terms of ND, was for the posterior approach 29 % improved, for the anterior approach 53 % improved, and for the anterior/posterior approach 15 % improved. Discussion: Our data suggest that the indications for metastatic tumor surgery in the spine depend on the location of the metastatic tumor in the spine, clinical symptoms, and prognosis.

Schlüsselwörter

Wirbelsäulenmetastasen - neurologische Ausfälle - operative und nicht-operative Verfahren

Key words

Metastatic tumors of the spine - neurological deficit - surgical approach

Literatur

  • 1 Silverberg E. Cancer statistics.  Cancer J Clin. 1984;  34 7-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Borg S A, Rubin P, DeWys W D. Metastases and disseminated disease. Clinical oncology for medical students and physicians - A multidisciplinary approach. Ed. 6. American Cancer Society, New York 1983; 498-499
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Boland P J, Lane J M, Sundersan N. Metastatic disease of the spine.  Clin Orthop. 1982;  169 95-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bhalla S K. Metastatic disease of the spine.  Clin Orthop. 1970;  73 52-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Weinstein J N, McLain R F. Primary tumor of the spine.  Spine. 1987;  12 843-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Frager C A. Management of malignant intraspinal disease.  Surg Clin NA. 1967;  47 743-749
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schaberg J, Gainor B J. A profile of metastatic carcinoma of the spine.  Spine. 1985;  10 19-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Black P. Spinal metastasis: current status and recommended guidelines for management.  Neurosurgery. 1979;  5 726-746
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harrington K D. Metastatic disease of the spine.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1986;  68 1110-1115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gilbert R W, Kim J H, Posner J B. Epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic tumor: Diagnosis and treatment.  Ann Neurl. 1978;  3 40-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Harrington K D. Orthopedic surgical management of skeletal complications of malignancy.  Cancer. 1997;  80 (Suppl 8) 1614-1627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Klekamp J, Samii H. Surgical results for spinal metastases.  Acta Neurochir. 1998;  140 957-967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Harrington K D. Management of unstable pathologic fracture dislocations of the spine and acetabulum secondary to metastatic malignancy. In: Brindley HH (ed). AAOS Instructional Course Lectures. vol. 24, C. V. Mosby, St. Louis 1980; 51-61
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bauer H C. Posterior decompression and stabilization for spinal metastases. Analysis of sixty-seven consecutive patients.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1997;  79 514-522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gerszten P C, Welch W C. Current surgical management of metastatic spinal disease.  Oncology (Huntingt). 2000;  14 1013-1024
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Onimus M, Papin P, Gangloff S. Results of surgical treatment of spinal thoracic and lumbar metastases.  Eur Spine J. 2000;  5 407-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bilsky M H, Lis E, Raizer J, Lee H, Boland P. The diagnosis and treatment of metastatic spinal tumor.  Oncologist. 1999;  4 459-469
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hammerberg K W. Surgical treatment of metastatic spine disease.  Spine. 1999;  17 1148-1153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cameron H N, Lucas J D, Timothy A R, Smith M A. The surgical treatment of metastatic disease of the spine.  Radiother Oncol. 1999;  56 335-339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Elliott K, Foley K M. Neurologic pain syndromes in patients with cancer.  Neurol Clin. 1999;  7 333-360
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Healey J H, Brown H K. Complications of bone metastases: surgical management.  Cancer. 1999;  88 2940-2951
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kienstra G E, Terwee C B, Dekker F W, Canta L R, Borstlap A C, Tijssen C C, Bosch D A, Tijssen J G. Prediction of spinal epidural metastases.  Arch Neurol. 1999;  57 690-695
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Frankel H L, Hancock D O, Hyslop G. et al . The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia.  Paraplegia. 1999;  7 179-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Riegel T, Schilling T, Sitter H, Benes L, Wilke A, Gross M W, Bertalanffy H. Analysis of factors affecting the prognosis of vertebral metastases.  Zentralbl Neurochir. 2002;  63 2-6
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Comey C H, McLaughlin M R, Moossy J. Anterior thoracic corpectomy without sternotomy: A strategy for malignant disease of the upper thoracic spine.  Acta Neurochir. 1992;  139 712-718
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Biyani A, Ebraheim N A, Lu J. Thoracic spine fractures in patients older than 50 years.  Clin Orthop. 1998;  328 190-193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Coleman R E. Skeletal complications of malignancy.  Cancer. 1998;  80 1588-1594
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schiff D, O'Neill B P, Wang C H, O'Fallon J R. Neuroimaging and treatment implications of patients with multiple epidural spinal metastases.  Cancer. 1998;  83 1593-1601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Olerund C, Jonsson B. Surgical palliation of symptomatic spinal metastases.  Acta Othop Scand. 1998;  67 407-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sorensen S, Borgesen S E, Rohde K. et al . Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Results of treatment and survival.  Cancer. 1990;  65 1502-1508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Weigel B, Maghsudi M, Neumann C, Kretschmer R, Muller F J, Nerlich M. Surgical management of symptomatic spinal metastases. Postoperative outcome and quality of life.  Spine. 1998;  24 2240-2246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Denis F. Spinal instability as defined by the three-column spine concept in acute spinal trauma.  Clin Orthop. 1998;  189 65-76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Farcy J P, Weidenbaum M, Glassman S D. Saggital index in management of thoracolumbar burst fractures.  Spine. 1998;  15 958-965
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Siegal T, Siegal T Z. Current considerations in the management of neoplastic spinal cord compression.  Spine. 1998;  14 223-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tatsui H, Onomura T, Morishita S, Oketa M, Inoue T. Survival rates of patients with metastatic spinal cancer after scintigraphic detection of abnormal radioactive accumulation.  Spine. 1998;  21 2143-2148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 van der Sande J J, Boogerd W, Kroger R, Kappelle A C. Current spinal epidural metastases: a prospective study with a complete follow up.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998;  66 623-627
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Savelli G, Chiti A, Grasselli G, Maccauro M, Rodari M, Bombardieri E. The role of bone SPET study in diagnosis of single vertebral metastases.  Anticancer Res. 1998;  20 1115-1120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Elsner K. et al . Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET.  J Nucl Med. 1998;  40 1623-1629
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Seto E, Segall G M, Terris M K. Positron emission tomography detection of osseous metastases of renal cell carcinoma not identified on bone scan.  Urology. 1998;  55 286
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Demers L M, Costa L, Lipton A. Biochemical markers and skeletal metastases.  Cancer. 1998;  88 2919-2926
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Stark R J, Henson R A, Evans S J. Spinal metastases: A retrospective survey from a general hospital.  Brain. 1998;  105 189-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Villavicencio H. Quality of life of patients with advanced metastatic prostatic carcinoma.  Eur Urol. 1998;  24 118-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Welch W C, Jacobs G B. Surgery for metastatic spinal disease.  J Neurooncol. 1998;  23 163-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Dommisse G F. The blood supply of the spinal cord: A critical vascular zone in spinal surgery.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1998;  56 225-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Constans J P, DeVitiis E, Donzelli R, Spaziante R, Meder J F, Haye C. Spinal metastases with neurological manifestations. Review of 600 Cases.  J Neurosurg. 1998;  59 11-118
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Casadei R, Greggi T, Miglietta A, Perozzi, Barchetti M, Parisini P. Posterior surgery for the treatment of thoracolumbar pathologic fractures in metastatic patients.  Chir Organi Mov. 1998;  83 149-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Sundaresan N, Hughes J EO, DiGiacinto G, Cafferty M. Surgical treatment of neoplastic cord compression.  Neurosurgery. 1991;  29 645-650
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Siegal T, Tiqva P, Siegal T A. Vertebral body resection for epidural compression by malignant tumors.  JBJS. 1991;  67 375-381
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Sundaresan N, Fraser A B, Krol G. Surgical stabilization for tumors of the thoracic spine. Spinal Instability. Winston H (ed). Springer, New York 1991
    Google Scholar

Dr. med. Markus Kröber

Department of orthopedic surgery

500 Parnassus Ave. 320 MW

Phone: San Francisco, CA 94143-0728

Email: kroeberm@orthosurg.ucsf.edu

      >