166 - Minimal Invasive Approach in Metastaic Spine Tumour Surgery...

#166 Minimal Invasive Approach in Metastaic Spine Tumour Surgery

Spine Tumors

Poster Presented by: N.S. Kumar

Author(s):

N.S. Kumar (1)
R. Malhotra (1)
P.H. Wu (1)
A.S. Zaw (1)
G. Liu (1)
J. Thambiah (1)
H.-K. Wong (1)

(1) National University Health System, Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore, Singapore

Abstract

Summary: Metastatic spinal disease is a common entity of much debate in terms of ideal surgical treatment. The introduction of MIS can be a game-changer in the treatment of MSD due to less peri-operative morbidity and allowing earlier radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy.

Introduction: Less invasive techniques have always been welcome for management of patients with 'Metastatic Spinal Disorders'. This is because these patients can be poor candidates for extensive / major invasive surgery even though radiologically, there may be an indication for one. The aim of the treatment with Minimal Invasive Fixation (MIS) systems is mainly for 'pain relief' than to radically decrease tumour burden or to achieve near total spinal cord decompression, which could be major presentations in these patients.1, 2 These procedures address the 'spinal instability' very well and they can address pain associated with compression fractures resulting from metastatic disease from a solid organ as well as multiple myeloma with minimal complications. These procedures can be combined with radiology and chemotherapy without much concern for wound problems in the way of infection or dehiscence.3-5They also have a great advantage of timing of adjunct therapy closer to the index procedure. The disadvantage, however, are they do not allow thorough decompression of the spinal cord. There could also be problem in addressing patients who have severe vertebral height loss or loss of integrity of the anterior column where anterior column reconstruction may be required. There is a risk of inadequate fixation or implant loosening or failure.

We aim to examine the results of MIS surgery in our department and support the rationale for its use.

Patients and Methods: We prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MIS posterior instrumentation for MSD. Between June 2011 June 2013, 15 patients presented with acute motor deficit, instability and/or threatening radiological features. Effectiveness of MIS was assessed in terms of operative parameters and clinical outcomes.

Results: No patient suffered intra-operative complications. The median surgical time was 198 minutes (range: 149 - 403), median blood loss was 100 ml (range: 60 - 400). All patients maintained full neurological function and reported effective pain reduction. All patients were discharged with a median hospital stay was 7 days (range: 4 - 45) post-surgery. 9 patients started oncological treatment as planned. The median time in 8 patients who had radiotherapy post-surgery was 23 days (range: 20 - 40). Chemotherapy was initiated in 4 patients at a median of 9 days post-surgery (range: 6 - 23). No patient as yet has required open procedure due to progression of the disease.

Discussion and Conclusion: We have shown that satisfactory outcomes are achievable with MIS in a selected group of patients with MSD. While our results are limited by small study size, we have been able to improve patient quality of living through minimally invasive intervention. By reducing surgical morbidity and enabling early implementation of oncological treatment, MIS has the potential to re-evaluate multi-disciplinary decision making for early surgery in MSD.