Naresh Kumar1,2, Ravish Patel3, Anshuja Charvi Wadhwa4, Aravind Kumar4, Helena Maria Milavec5, Dhiraj Sonawane3, Gurpal Singh3, Lorin Michael Benneker5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. dosksn@nus.edu.sg. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgery Cluster, 1E Kent Ridge Road, NUHS Tower Block, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. dosksn@nus.edu.sg. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, 768824, Singapore. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The development of spinal implants marks a watershed in the evolution of metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS), which has evolved from standalone decompressive laminectomy to instrumented stabilization and decompression with reconstruction when necessary. Fusion may not be feasible after MSTS due to poor quality of graft host bed along with adjunct chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy postoperatively. With an increase in the survival of patients with spinal tumours, there is a probability of an increase in the rate of implant failure. This review aims to help establish a clear understanding of implants/constructs used in MSTS and to highlight the fundamental biomechanics of implant/construct failures. METHODS: Published literature on implant failure after spine surgery and MSTS has been reviewed. The evolution of spinal implants and their role in MSTS has been briefly described. The review defines implant/construct failures using radiological parameters that are practical, feasible, and derived from historical descriptions. We have discussed common modes of implant/construct failure after MSTS to allow further understanding, interception, and prevention of catastrophic failure. RESULTS: Implant failure rates in MSTS are in the range of 2-8%. Variability in patterns of failure has been observed based on anatomical region and the type of constructs used. Patients with construct/implant failures may or may not be symptomatic and present either as early (< 3months) or late failures (> 3months). It has been noted that not all the implant failures after MSTS result in revisions. CONCLUSION: Based on the observed radiological criteria and clinical presentations, we have proposed a clinico-radiological classification for implant/construct failure after MSTS.
PURPOSE: The development of spinal implants marks a watershed in the evolution of metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS), which has evolved from standalone decompressive laminectomy to instrumented stabilization and decompression with reconstruction when necessary. Fusion may not be feasible after MSTS due to poor quality of graft host bed along with adjunct chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy postoperatively. With an increase in the survival of patients with spinal tumours, there is a probability of an increase in the rate of implant failure. This review aims to help establish a clear understanding of implants/constructs used in MSTS and to highlight the fundamental biomechanics of implant/construct failures. METHODS: Published literature on implant failure after spine surgery and MSTS has been reviewed. The evolution of spinal implants and their role in MSTS has been briefly described. The review defines implant/construct failures using radiological parameters that are practical, feasible, and derived from historical descriptions. We have discussed common modes of implant/construct failure after MSTS to allow further understanding, interception, and prevention of catastrophic failure. RESULTS: Implant failure rates in MSTS are in the range of 2-8%. Variability in patterns of failure has been observed based on anatomical region and the type of constructs used. Patients with construct/implant failures may or may not be symptomatic and present either as early (< 3months) or late failures (> 3months). It has been noted that not all the implant failures after MSTS result in revisions. CONCLUSION: Based on the observed radiological criteria and clinical presentations, we have proposed a clinico-radiological classification for implant/construct failure after MSTS.
Entities:
Keywords:
Asymptomatic implant failure; Early failure; Late failure; Metastatic spine tumour surgery; Symptomatic implant failure
Authors: Ran Harel; Samuel Chao; Ajit Krishnaney; Todd Emch; Edward C Benzel; Lilyana Angelov Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Naresh Kumar; Rishi Malhotra; Karthikeyan Maharajan; Aye S Zaw; Pang Hung Wu; Milindu C Makandura; Gabriel Ka Po Liu; Joseph Thambiah; Hee-Kit Wong Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: D R Fourney; D Abi-Said; L D Rhines; G L Walsh; F F Lang; I E McCutcheon; Z L Gokaslan Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 5.115