Posterior-only approach for lumbar vertebral column resection and expandable cage reconstruction for spinal metastases.

OBJECT: The increasing incidence of spinal metastasis, a result of improved systemic therapies for cancer, has spurred a search for an alternative method for the surgical treatment of lumbar metastases. The authors report a single-stage posterior-only approach for resecting any pathological lumbar vertebral segment and reconstructing with a medium to large expandable cage while preserving all neurological structures.
METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective consecutive case review of 11 patients (5 women, 6 men) with spinal metastases treated at 1 institution with single-stage posterior-only vertebral column resection and reconstruction with an expandable cage and pedicle screw fixation. For all patients, the indications for operative intervention were spinal cord compression, cauda equina compression, and/or spinal instability. Neurological status was classified according to the American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale, and functional outcomes were analyzed by using a visual analog scale for pain.
RESULTS: For all patients, a circumferential vertebral column resection was achieved, and full decompression was performed with a posterior-only approach. Each cage was augmented by posterior pedicle screw fixation extending 2 levels above and below the resected level. No patient required a separate anterior procedure. Average estimated blood loss and duration of each surgery were 1618 ml (range 900-4000 ml) and 6.6 hours (range 4.5-9 hours), respectively. The mean follow-up time was 14 months (range 10-24 months). The median survival time after surgery was 17.7 months. Delayed hardware failure occurred for 1 patient. Preoperatively, 2 patients had intractable pain with intact lower-extremity strength and 8 patients had severe intractable pain, lower-extremity paresis, and were unable to walk; 4 of whom regained the ability to walk after surgery. Two patients who were paraplegic before decompression recovered substantial function but remained wheelchair bound, and 2 patients remained paraparetic after the surgery. No patients had lasting intraoperative neuromonitoring changes, and none died. Complications included 2 reoperations, 1 delayed hardware failure (cage subsidence that did not require revision), and 3 incidental durotomies (none of which required reoperation). No postoperative pneumonia, ileus, or deep venous thrombosis developed in any patient.
CONCLUSIONS: A posterior-only approach for vertebral segment resection with preservation of spinal nerve roots is a viable technique that can be used throughout the entire lumbar spine. Extensive mobilization of the nerve roots is of utmost importance and allows for insertion and expansion of medium-sized, in situ expandable cages in the midline. This approach, although technically challenging, might reduce the morbidity associated with an anterior approach.