BACKGROUND: Radical surgery of renal cell carcinoma spinal metastases carries a high risk due to potentially life-threatening extreme blood loss. Radical preoperative embolization of renal cell carcinoma metastases alone is not necessarily a guarantee of extreme blood loss not occurring during operation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 15 patients following radical surgery for a spinal metastases of a renal cell carcinoma was performed. Eight patients were embolized preoperatively and 7 were not. We analysed features influencing peroperative blood loss: size and extent of tumour, complexity of surgical approaches and radicality of embolization. RESULTS: The embolized and non embolized groups were not comparable before treatment. They differed markedly in size of tumour as well as the complexity of approach. In the embolized group the size of the tumour was, on average, twice as large as that in non embolized patients and more complex approaches were used twice as frequently. Despite findings suggesting that embolization was effective, blood loss was greater in the embolized group of 8 patients (4750 ml), compared to the non-embolized group of 7 patients (1786 ml). CONCLUSION: Metastasis size, extent of tumour, technical complexity of surgery and the completeness of preoperative embolization had an important effect on the amount of peroperative blood loss. The evaluation of the benefits of preoperative embolization only on the basis of blood loss is not an adequate method.
BACKGROUND: Radical surgery of renal cell carcinoma spinal metastases carries a high risk due to potentially life-threatening extreme blood loss. Radical preoperative embolization of renal cell carcinoma metastases alone is not necessarily a guarantee of extreme blood loss not occurring during operation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 15 patients following radical surgery for a spinal metastases of a renal cell carcinoma was performed. Eight patients were embolized preoperatively and 7 were not. We analysed features influencing peroperative blood loss: size and extent of tumour, complexity of surgical approaches and radicality of embolization. RESULTS: The embolized and non embolized groups were not comparable before treatment. They differed markedly in size of tumour as well as the complexity of approach. In the embolized group the size of the tumour was, on average, twice as large as that in non embolized patients and more complex approaches were used twice as frequently. Despite findings suggesting that embolization was effective, blood loss was greater in the embolized group of 8 patients (4750 ml), compared to the non-embolized group of 7 patients (1786 ml). CONCLUSION: Metastasis size, extent of tumour, technical complexity of surgery and the completeness of preoperative embolization had an important effect on the amount of peroperative blood loss. The evaluation of the benefits of preoperative embolization only on the basis of blood loss is not an adequate method.
Authors: Gianpaolo Carrafiello; Gianlorenzo Dionigi; Luigi Boni; Monica Mangini; Anna Maria Ierardi; Filippo Piacentino; Annalisa Di Massa; Larissa Nocchi Cardim; Antonio Biondi; Carlo Fugazzola Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2011-11-08
Authors: Matthias Reitz; Klaus Christian Mende; Christopher Cramer; Theresa Krätzig; ZSuzsanna Nagy; Eik Vettorazzi; Sven Oliver Eicker; Marc Dreimann Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Patrick Cernoch; Lukas Hechelhammer; Alexander von Hessling; Christian Spross; Johannes Erhardt; Bernhard Jost; Fabrice A Külling Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 3.075