Effect of Minimally Invasive Spine Stabilization in Metastatic Spinal Tumors

A new era in the management of spinal metastasis

Despite the recent advances in cancer treatment, the incidence of patients with spinal metastases continues to grow along with the total number of cancer patients. Spinal metastases can significantly impair activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QOL), compared with other types of bone metastases, as they are characterized with severe pain and paralysis caused by skeletal-related events. Reduced ADL can also lead to treatment limitations as certain anticancer agents and radiation therapy are not compatible treatments; thus, leading to a shorter life expectancy. Consequently, maintaining ADLs in patients with spinal metastases is paramount, and spine surgeons have an integral role to play in this regard. However, neurosurgeon, orthopedic and spinal surgeons in Japan do not have a proactive treatment approach to spinal metastases, which may prevent them from providing appropriate treatment when needed (clinical inertia). To overcome such endemic inertia, it is essential for 1) spine surgeons to understand and be more actively involved with patients with musculoskeletal disorders (cancer locomo) and cancer patients; 2) the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach (coordination and meetings not only with the attending oncologist but also with spine surgeons, radiologists, rehabilitation specialists, and other professionals) to preemptive treatment such as medication, radiotherapy, and surgical treatment; and 3) the integration of the latest findings associated with minimally invasive spinal treatments that have expanded the indications for treatment of spinal metastases and improved treatment outcomes. This heralds a new era in the management of spinal metastases.

The role of minimally invasive surgery within a multidisciplinary approach for patients with metastatic spine disease over a decade: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Metastatic spine disease (MSD) occurs commonly in cancer patients causing pain, spinal instability, devastating neurological compromise, and decreased quality of life. Oncological patients are often medically complex and frail, precluding them form invasive procedures. To address this issue, minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) techniques are desirable. The aim of this study is to review published peer-reviewed literature and ongoing clinical trials to provide current state of the art.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, assessing MISS in MSD patients for the period 2013-2023. Innovations under development were assessed by querying and reviewing data from currently enrolling U.S. registered clinical trials.

RESULTS

From 3,696 articles, 50 studies on 3,196 patients focused on spinal oncology MISS. The most commonly reported techniques were vertebral augmentation (VA), percutaneous spinal instrumentation, and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Surgical instrumentation/stabilization techniques were reported in 10/50 articles for a total of 410 patients. The majority of studies focused on pain as a primary outcome measure, with 28/50 studies reporting a significant improvement in pain following intervention. In the United States, 13 therapeutic trials are currently recruiting MSD patients. Their main focus includes radiosurgery, VA and/or RFA, and laser interstitial thermal therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to their medical complexity and increased fragility, MSD patients may benefit from minimally invasive approaches. These strategies are effective at mitigating pain and preventing neurological deterioration, while providing other advantages including ease to start/resume systemic/radiotherapy treatment(s).

Bone Fusion Morphology after Circumferential Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws without Bone Grafting in the Thoracic Spine: A Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the process and morphology of thoracic and lumbosacral bone fusion in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) who underwent circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery (CMIS) by lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous pedicle screws (PPSs) without bone grafting in the thoracic spine and who have risk factors for bone fusion failure in the thoracic spine. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 61 patients with spinal deformities (46 women and 15 men) who underwent CMIS with LLIF and PPSs at our hospital after 2016 and completed a 3-year postoperative follow-up. The rate and morphology of bone fusion and rod fracture rate in the thoracic and lumbosacral vertebrae were evaluated. Patients were divided into the thoracic spine spontaneous bone fusion group and the bone fusion failure group. The data of various spinopelvic parameters and the incidence of complications were compared. The vertebral body conditions in the thoracic spine were classified as less degenerative (type N), osteophyte (type O), and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) (type D). Results: After three postoperative years, the bone fusion rates were 54%, 95%, and 89% for the thoracic, lumbar, and lumbosacral spine, respectively. Screw loosening in the thoracic vertebrae was significantly higher in the bone fusion failure group, while no significant differences were observed in the spinopelvic parameters, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and rate of proximal junctional kyphosis and rod fractures. Type N vertebral body condition and screw loosening were identified as risk factors for spontaneous bone fusion failure in the thoracic spine. Conclusion: This study indicated that spontaneous bone fusion is likely to be obtained without screw loosening, and even if bone fusion is not obtained, there is no effect on clinical results with the mid-term (3-year) results of CMIS without bone grafting in the thoracic spine.

A New Treatment Algorithm That Incorporates Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spines: The Results of Its Clinical Application to a Series of 34 Patients

Background and Objectives: Spinal minimally invasive surgery (MIS) experts at the university hospital worked as a team to develop a new treatment algorithm for pyogenic spondylodiscitis in lumbar and thoracic spines. They modified a flow chart introduced for this condition in a pre-MIS era to incorporate MIS techniques based on their extensive experiences accumulated over the years, both in MIS for degenerative lumbar diseases and in the treatment of spine infections. The MIS procedures incorporated in this algorithm consisted of percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS)–rod fixation and transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). The current study analyzed a series of 34 patients treated with prospective selection of the methods according to this new algorithm. Materials and Methods: The algorithm first divided the patients into those who had escaped complicated disease conditions, such as neurologic impairment, extensive bone destruction, and the need to be mobilized without delay (Group 1) (19), and those with complicated pyogenic spondylodiscitis (Group 2) (15). Group 1 had image-guided needle biopsy followed by conservative treatment alone with antibiotics and a spinal brace (12) (Group 1-A) or a subsequent addition of non-fused PPS–rod fixation (7) (Group 1-B). Group 2 underwent an immediate single-stage MIS with non-fused PPS–rod fixation followed by posterior exposure for decompression and debridement through a small midline incision (12) (Group 2-A) or an additional LLIF procedure after an interval of 3 weeks (3) (Group 2-B). Results: All patients, except four, who either died from causes unrelated to the spondylodiscitis (2) or became lost to follow up (2), were cured of infection with normalized CRP at an average follow up of 606 days (105–1522 days). A solid interbody fusion occurred at the affected vertebrae in 15 patients (50%). Of the patients in Group 2, all but two regained a nearly normal function. Despite concerns about non-fused PPS–rod instrumentation, only seven patients (21%) required implant removal or replacement. Conclusions: Non-fused PPS–rod placements into infection-free vertebrae alone or in combination with posterior debridement through a small incision worked effectively in providing local stabilization without contamination of the metal implant from the infected tissue. MIS LLIF allowed for direct access to the infected focus for bone grafting in cases of extensive vertebral body destruction.