Literature DB >> 31561656

Spinal Radiofrequency Ablation Combined with Cement Augmentation for Painful Spinal Vertebral Metastasis: A Single-Center Prospective Study.

Dawood Sayed1, Daniel Jacobs2, Timothy Sowder2, Daniel Haines2, Walter Orr1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The spine is the most common site of skeletal metastatic disease. Vertebral body metastases (VBM) can cause crippling pain, fractures, and spinal cord compression. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive technique that has proven to be a safe method of targeted tissue destruction. Studies have shown that RFA combined with cement vertebral augmentation is safe and effective and has been associated with significant improvements in pain and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was continued evaluation of the safety and efficacy of this technique. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort.
SETTING: A single academic medical center.
METHODS: Patients undergoing RFA with cement vertebral augmentation for a painful thoracic or lumbar VBM were eligible for inclusion. Additional inclusion criteria included pain concordant with a metastatic lesion on cross-sectional imaging, aged 18 years or older, and considered candidates for spinal tumor ablation by the operating physician. Patients with vertebral metastatic disease in the cervical spine or patients with spinal cord compression from posterior tumor extension were excluded. Ablation within each VBM was performed using a bipolar radiofrequency probe with an extensible electrode and available articulation, permitting vertebral body navigation percutaneously. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 days, one week, one month, and 3 months using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General 7 (FACT-G7) to assess pain and quality-of-life, respectively. A one-sample t test was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess changes in average NRS-11 and FACT-G7 scores.
RESULTS: A total of 30 patients met inclusion criteria and underwent RFA of one or more VBM. Patients with 13 different primary cancers types underwent treatment. Patients received RFA to either one (n = 26; 87%) or 2 vertebral body levels (n = 4; 13%). Of the 34 levels, 13 were thoracic vertebra (38%) and 21 were lumbar vertebra (62%). Average NRS-11 scores decreased from a baseline of 5.77 to 4.65 (3 days; P = 0.16), 3.33 (one week; P < 0.01), 2.64 (one month; P < 0.01), and 2.61 (3 months; P < 0.01). FACT-G7 increased from a baseline average of 13.0 to 14.7 (3 days; P = 0.13), 14.69 (one week; P = 0.15), 14.04 (one month; P = 0.35), and 15.11 (3 months; P = 0.07). No major adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: A heterogeneous patient population, small sample size, and potential confounders of concurrent variable adjuvant therapies were limitations. Additionally, most patients received both cement augmentation and targeted RFA, making it difficult to distinguish independent analgesic benefits of the therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that minimally invasive targeted RFA with cement augmentation of spinal metastatic lesions is an effective treatment for patients with VBM. KEY WORDS: Cancer, cancer pain, spinal metastasis, radiofrequency ablation, tumor ablation, cement augmentation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31561656

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Physician        ISSN: 1533-3159            Impact factor:   4.965


  7 in total

1.  Reply.

Authors:  K Zhang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Percutaneous CT-Guided Microwave Ablation Combined with Vertebral Augmentation for Treatment of Painful Spinal Metastases.

Authors:  L Chen; G Hou; K Zhang; Z Li; S Yang; Y Qiu; Q Yuan; D Hou; X Ye
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 3.  The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practices and Guidelines for the Interventional Management of Cancer-Associated Pain.

Authors:  Mansoor M Aman; Ammar Mahmoud; Timothy Deer; Dawood Sayed; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Shane E Brogan; Vinita Singh; Amitabh Gulati; Natalie Strand; Jacqueline Weisbein; Johnathan H Goree; Fangfang Xing; Ali Valimahomed; Daniel J Pak; Antonios El Helou; Priyanka Ghosh; Krishna Shah; Vishal Patel; Alexander Escobar; Keith Schmidt; Jay Shah; Vishal Varshney; William Rosenberg; Sanjeet Narang
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 3.133

4.  What is the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation in the management of patients with spinal metastases? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Navanith Murali; Thomas Turmezei; Sumbal Bhatti; Puja Patel; Thomas Marshall; Toby Smith
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-11-06       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  Management of Spinal Bone Metastases With Radiofrequency Ablation, Vertebral Reinforcement and Transpedicular Fixation: A Retrospective Single-Center Case Series.

Authors:  Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva; Roberta Costanzo; Federica Paolini; Umberto Emanuele Benigno; Massimiliano Porzio; Lara Brunasso; Luigi Basile; Carlo Gulì; Maria Angela Pino; Rosa Maria Gerardi; Domenico Messina; Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana; Paolo Palmisciano; Gianluca Scalia; Francesca Graziano; Massimiliano Visocchi; Domenico Gerardo Iacopino; Rosario Maugeri
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Clinical efficacy and safety of bone cement combined with radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of spinal metastases.

Authors:  Nanning Lv; Rui Geng; Feng Ling; Zhangzhe Zhou; Mingming Liu
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 2.474

7.  A Retrospective Evaluation of Operative and Postoperative Outcomes in Patients with Spinal Metastases from a Single Center to Compare Vertebrectomy with Combined Vertebrectomy and Radiofrequency Ablation.

Authors:  Xiuxin Han; Chao Zhang; Lili Li; Yulin Ma; Guowen Wang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2021-12-26
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.