A Kelekis1, D Filippiadis2, G Anselmetti3, E Brountzos4, A Mavrogenis5, P Papagelopoulos6, N Kelekis7, J-B Martin8. 1. 2nd Radiology Department, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", 1 Rimini Str, 12462, Athens, Greece. akelekis@med.uoa.gr. 2. 2nd Radiology Department, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", 1 Rimini Str, 12462, Athens, Greece. dfilippiadis@yahoo.gr. 3. GVM Care and Research Maria Pia Hospital, Strada Comunale di Mongreno 180, 10132, Turin, Italy. gc.anselmetti@fastwebnet.it. 4. 2nd Radiology Department, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", 1 Rimini Str, 12462, Athens, Greece. ebrountz@med.uoa.gr. 5. A Orthopedic Clinic, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", Athens, Greece. afm@otenet.gr. 6. A Orthopedic Clinic, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", Athens, Greece. pjp@hol.gr. 7. 2nd Radiology Department, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", 1 Rimini Str, 12462, Athens, Greece. kelnik@med.uoa.gr. 8. Centre Imaginerie Rive Droite & Gauche, Geneva, Switzerland. jbmartin@cird.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical efficacy/safety of augmented peripheral osteoplasty in oncologic patients with long-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percutaneous augmented peripheral osteoplasty was performed in 12 patients suffering from symptomatic lesions of long bones. Under extensive local sterility measures, anesthesiology care, and fluoroscopic guidance, direct access to lesion was obtained and coaxially a metallic mesh consisting of 25-50 medical grade stainless steel micro-needles (22 G, 2-6 cm length) was inserted. PMMA for vertebroplasty was finally injected under fluoroscopic control. CT assessed implant position 24-h post-treatment. RESULTS: Clinical evaluation included immediate and delayed follow-up studies of patient's general condition, NVS pain score, and neurological status. Imaging assessed implant's long-term stability. Mean follow-up was 16.17 ± 10.93 months (range 2-36 months). Comparing patients' scores prior (8.33 ± 1.67 NVS units) and post (1.42 ± 1.62 NVS units) augmented peripheral osteoplasty, there was a mean decrease of 6.92 ± 1.51 NVS units. Overall mobility improved in 12/12 patients. No complication was observed. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous augmented peripheral osteoplasty (rebar concept) for symptomatic malignant lesions in long bones seems to be a possible new technique for bone stabilization. This combination seems to provide necessary stability against shearing forces applied in long bones during weight bearing.
PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical efficacy/safety of augmented peripheral osteoplasty in oncologic patients with long-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percutaneous augmented peripheral osteoplasty was performed in 12 patients suffering from symptomatic lesions of long bones. Under extensive local sterility measures, anesthesiology care, and fluoroscopic guidance, direct access to lesion was obtained and coaxially a metallic mesh consisting of 25-50 medical grade stainless steel micro-needles (22 G, 2-6 cm length) was inserted. PMMA for vertebroplasty was finally injected under fluoroscopic control. CT assessed implant position 24-h post-treatment. RESULTS: Clinical evaluation included immediate and delayed follow-up studies of patient's general condition, NVS pain score, and neurological status. Imaging assessed implant's long-term stability. Mean follow-up was 16.17 ± 10.93 months (range 2-36 months). Comparing patients' scores prior (8.33 ± 1.67 NVS units) and post (1.42 ± 1.62 NVS units) augmented peripheral osteoplasty, there was a mean decrease of 6.92 ± 1.51 NVS units. Overall mobility improved in 12/12 patients. No complication was observed. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous augmented peripheral osteoplasty (rebar concept) for symptomatic malignant lesions in long bones seems to be a possible new technique for bone stabilization. This combination seems to provide necessary stability against shearing forces applied in long bones during weight bearing.