Literature DB >> 28734793

Hardware failure in patients with metastatic cancer to the spine.

Rachel Pedreira1, Nancy Abu-Bonsrah1, A Karim Ahmed1, Rafael De la Garza-Ramos1, C Rory Goodwin1, Ziya L Gokaslan2, Justin Sacks3, Daniel M Sciubba4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The spine is the most common site of skeletal metastases, affecting approximately 30% of individuals with cancer. The aim of surgical treatment for metastatic spine disease is generally palliative to address pain and/or neurologic compromise, significantly improving patients' quality of life. Patients with metastatic spine disease, however, represent a vulnerable cohort and may have comorbidities or previous treatments that impair the structural integrity of spinal hardware. As such, identifying factors that may contribute to hardware failure is an essential component in treating individuals with metastatic spine disease.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify pre-operative risk factors associated with hardware failure in patients undergoing surgical treatment for metastatic spine disease.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to include patients surgically treated for metastatic spine tumors between 2003 and 2013, at a single institution. A univariate analysis was initially performed to identify associated factors. Any associated factor with a p-value <0.20 was included in the multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: 3 patients (1.9%), of the 159 patients included in the study, had failure of the spine instrumentation. 1 patient had metastatic prostate cancer, and 2 had metastatic breast cancer. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, tumor location, and primary tumor etiology were not found to be statistically significant, with respect to hardware failure. Predictive factors included in the multivariate model were other bone metastasis, visceral metastasis, brain metastasis, Modified Rankin scale, previous systemic chemotherapy, previous radiation to the spine, and mean survival. Previous radiation to the spine was the only factor to be significantly associated (p=0.029), present in all three patients with hardware failure. Of note, there was a trend indicating that patients with longer life expectancies were more likely to experience hardware failure (mean survival of 16.7months in non-failure cohort vs. 33months in failure cohort), though this did not achieve statistical significance due to the limited sample size of patients with hardware failure.
CONCLUSION: Hardware failure is a risk for all patients who undergo instrumentation following resection for metastatic spine tumors. This study identified that pre-operative radiation may increase the risk for hardware failure in this population.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hardware failure; Radiation; Spinal metastases

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28734793     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.05.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  10 in total

Review 1.  Basic concepts in metal work failure after metastatic spine tumour surgery.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Ravish Patel; Anshuja Charvi Wadhwa; Aravind Kumar; Helena Maria Milavec; Dhiraj Sonawane; Gurpal Singh; Lorin Michael Benneker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Minimal Access Surgery for Spinal Metastases: Prospective Evaluation of a Treatment Algorithm Using Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Ori Barzilai; Lily McLaughlin; Mary-Kate Amato; Anne S Reiner; Shahiba Q Ogilvie; Eric Lis; Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; Ilya Laufer
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 2.104

3.  Factors Related to Instrumentation Failure in Titanium Mesh Reconstruction for Thoracic and Lumbar Tumors: Retrospective Analysis of 178 Patients.

Authors:  Wei-Dong Bao; Qi Jia; Tao Wang; Yan Lou; Dong-Jie Jiang; Cheng Yang; Xinghai Yang; Quan Huang; Hai-Feng Wei; Jian-Ru Xiao
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 3.989

4.  Pathological analysis of periprosthetic soft tissue and modes of failure in revision total joint arthroplasty patients.

Authors:  Patrick Bettiol; Alec Egan; Cameron Cox; Eric Wait; George Brindley
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2021-09-22

Review 5.  Factors associated with spinal fixation mechanical failure after tumor resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhenyu Cai; Yongzhao Zhao; Xiaodong Tang; Rongli Yang; Taiqiang Yan; Wei Guo
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-02-20       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  A Novel Approach to Ray Resection of the Hand.

Authors:  Brendan MacKay; Hillary Wall; Amanda Weaver; Tyler Sexson; Jon Wall; Matthew Blue; Marcus Doughty
Journal:  J Hand Surg Glob Online       Date:  2019-12-24

7.  Hardware Failure in Spinal Tumor Surgery: A Hallmark of Longer Survival?

Authors:  Nikita Zaborovskii; Adam Schlauch; Dmitrii Ptashnikov; Dmitrii Mikaylov; Sergei Masevnin; Oleg Smekalenkov; John Shapton; Dimitriy Kondrashov
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2022-03-31

8.  Feasibility of postoperative spine stereotactic body radiation therapy in proximity of carbon and titanium hybrid implants using a robotic radiotherapy device.

Authors:  Dominik Henzen; Daniel Schmidhalter; Gian Guyer; Anna Stenger-Weisser; Ekin Ermiş; Robert Poel; Moritz Caspar Deml; Michael Karl Fix; Peter Manser; Daniel Matthias Aebersold; Hossein Hemmatazad
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 4.309

9.  Anterior Corpectomy and Plating with Carbon-PEEK Instrumentation for Cervical Spinal Metastases: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.

Authors:  Sokol Trungu; Luca Ricciardi; Stefano Forcato; Antonio Scollato; Giuseppe Minniti; Massimo Miscusi; Antonino Raco
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 10.  Complication Avoidance in Surgical Management of Vertebral Column Tumors.

Authors:  Joshua Feler; Felicia Sun; Ankush Bajaj; Matthew Hagan; Samika Kanekar; Patricia Leigh Zadnik Sullivan; Jared S Fridley; Ziya L Gokaslan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.677

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.