Skip to main content
  • Cement Augmented Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures Secondary to Metastatic Tumors

    Final Number:

    David Rubin MD; Eric Lis MD; Yoshiya Josh Yamada MD, FRCP; Mark H. Bilsky MD; Ilya Laufer MD

    Study Design:
    Clinical Trial

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2012 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: Mechanical instability and axial load pain represent a major source of morbidity from pathologic fractures in the cancer population. In the absence of spinal cord compression, vertebral body cement augmentation and/or open surgical instrumentation have been shown to be viable treatment options. However, in our experience vertebral body cement augmentation alone may be inadequate when posterior elements are affected by tumor. In these cases, open surgical techniques may be an effective option but recent literature suggest multiple advantages to using MIS procedures in the non-cancer population including shorter recovery times, decreased hospitalization time and preservation of spinal musculature (1-9). Cement augmentation of the screw insertion sites has been shown to improve pull-out strength. We present five patients treated with cement augmented percutaneous pedicle screw placement (PPSP) for unstable pathologic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine.

    Methods: Five patients underwent PPSP with cement augmentation for mechanical instability of the thoracolumbar spine caused by spinal metastases. None of the patient required a spinal canal decompression (10). All patients experienced movement-related back pain and mechanical radiculopathy and had spinal instability neoplastic scores (SINS) that were consistent with indeterminate instability or instability (11, 12). Pedicle screws were placed one level above and one level below the fracture. Patients were followed with serial x-rays and/or CT scans and VAS scores. Paired student t-test was used to measure the change in VAS.

    Results: Three of five patients had complete resolution of VAS pain symptoms by two-week post-operative follow-up. The remaining two patients continued to have pain two weeks post-operatively but pain was substantially reduced (VAS 7.6 reduction, p<0.001). Median follow-up was 2.5 months (range 2-8 months), without major complications.

    Conclusions: Cement augmented PPSP, represents a novel stabilization technique for patients with spinal metastases causing mechanical instability and provides significant pain relief.

    Patient Care: Application of minimally invasive surgical techniques to cancer patients may improve quality of life for these patients.

    Learning Objectives: By the completion of this session, participants should be able describe the roll for percutaneous pedicle screw placement with cement augmentation in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures secondary to metastatic tumors.

    References: 1. Kim CW. Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine. Dec 15 2010;35(26 Suppl):S281-286. 2. Kim D-Y. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine. 2005;30(1):123-129. 3. Kanter AS, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E1. 4. Assaker R. Minimal access spinal technologies: state-of-the-art, indications, and techniques. Joint Bone Spine 2004;71:459–69. 5. Selznick LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:207–13. 6. Kerr SM, Tannoury C, White AP, et al. The role of minimally invasive surgery in the lumbar spine. Oper Tech Orthop 2007;17:183–9. 7. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, Sciubba DM, et al. Maximizing the potential of minimally invasive spine surgery in complex spinal disorders. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E19 8. Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus 2009;27:E9. 9. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006;20:E6. 10. Bilsky M, Smith M: Surgical approach to epidural spinal cord compression. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 20:1307–1317, 2006 11. 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. Oct 15 2010;35(22):E1221-1229. 12. Fourney DR, Frangou EM, Ryken TC, et al. Spinal instability neoplastic score: an analysis of reliability and validity from the spine oncology study group. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Aug 1 2011;29(22):3072-3077.

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy