Literature DB >> 23989593

[Indications and limitations of minimally invasive stabilization of metastatic spinal disease].

C Josten1, S Glasmacher, A Franck.   

Abstract

The number of patients with symptomatic metastases increases from year to year. Especially spinal metastases often lead to severe pain which often cannot be treated adequately by conservative treatment. Surgeons are confronted with the risk of instability, pathological fractures and neurological failure and the surgical treatment necessary in most cases is nowadays becoming an even greater challenge. The surgical procedure has changed considerably in recent years. The therapy is patient-individualized, the selection of implants and technology is adapted to the physical condition of the patient and the progression of the underlying disease. The main targets of the surgical treatment of spinal metastases have to be sufficient pain reduction with restoration of mobility as well as with the prevention of neurological deficits caused by progressive osteolysis. There are two minimally invasive stabilization procedures which can basically be applied. Under certain circumstances a single kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty procedure can be sufficient, in contrast to the possibility of short or long percutaneous posterior stabilization in combination with selective decompression of neural structures. These percutaneous surgical procedures currently have an important place in the surgical treatment of spinal metastases. The advantages are a less traumatic intervention for patients with advanced malignant diseases and poor general condition. Low intraoperative loss of blood means less intraoperative stress for the patient and minor surgical approaches lead to rapid mobilization and effective pain relief. As a result the hospital stay is shorter, adjuvant therapy can be started earlier and patients can be discharged sooner.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23989593     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-013-2070-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  13 in total

1.  Spinal instability neoplastic score: an analysis of reliability and validity from the spine oncology study group.

Authors:  Daryl R Fourney; Evan M Frangou; Timothy C Ryken; Christian P Dipaola; Christopher I Shaffrey; Sigurd H Berven; Mark H Bilsky; James S Harrop; Michael G Fehlings; Stefano Boriani; Dean Chou; Meic H Schmidt; David W Polly; Roberto Biagini; Shane Burch; Mark B Dekutoski; Aruna Ganju; Peter C Gerszten; Ziya L Gokaslan; Michael W Groff; Norbert J Liebsch; Ehud Mendel; Scott H Okuno; Shreyaskumar Patel; Laurence D Rhines; Peter S Rose; Daniel M Sciubba; Narayan Sundaresan; Katsuro Tomita; Peter P Varga; Luiz R Vialle; Frank D Vrionis; Yoshiya Yamada; Charles G Fisher
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Risk factors and probability of vertebral body collapse in metastases of the thoracic and lumbar spine.

Authors:  H Taneichi; K Kaneda; N Takeda; K Abumi; S Satoh
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Surgical strategy for spinal metastases.

Authors:  K Tomita; N Kawahara; T Kobayashi; A Yoshida; H Murakami; T Akamaru
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  Radiological imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases.

Authors:  L D Rybak; D I Rosenthal
Journal:  Q J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-03

5.  Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis.

Authors:  Y Tokuhashi; H Matsuzaki; S Toriyama; H Kawano; S Ohsaka
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  [Surgical management of vertebral column metastatic disease].

Authors:  K-D Schaser; I Melcher; T Mittlmeier; A Schulz; J H Seemann; N P Haas; A C Disch
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.000

7.  [The value of magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) with reference to economic aspects of radiotherapy planning of vertebral metastases. A cost benefit analysis].

Authors:  F J Prott; O Micke; E Schlehuber; B J Scharding; E Rinast
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 0.635

8.  Stabilization of the cervicothoracic junction in tumoral cases with a hybrid less invasive-minimally invasive surgical technique: report of two cases.

Authors:  Hector Roldan; Juan Christian Ribas-Nijkerk; Luis Perez-Orribo; Victor Garcia-Marin
Journal:  J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 1.268

9.  Minimally Invasive Posterior Stabilization Improved Ambulation and Pain Scores in Patients with Plasmacytomas and/or Metastases of the Spine.

Authors:  Joseph H Schwab; Alessandro Gasbarrini; Michele Cappuccio; Luca Boriani; Federico De Iure; Simone Colangeli; Stefano Boriani
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-09-05

10.  Minimally invasive treatment of spinal metastases: techniques.

Authors:  Peter S Rose; Michelle J Clarke; Mark B Dekutoski
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-06-28
View more
  3 in total

1.  [Kyphoplasty combined with intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT). Alternative therapy for patients with oligometastatic spinal metastases].

Authors:  F Bludau; T Reis; F Schneider; S Clausen; F Wenz; U Obertacke
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  [Treatment strategies for pathological fractures of the spine].

Authors:  M Pishnamaz; V Quack; C Herren; F Hildebrand; P Kobbe
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 3.  [Metastatic breast cancer in the spine : Molecular predictors for choosing adequate treatment strategies].

Authors:  D Adler; M Kriegsmann; P Sinn; A Schneeweiss; H Almansour; B Lehner; M Akbar
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.087

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.