European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 836–842 | Cite as

Quantitative in vivo fusion assessment by 18F-fluoride PET/CT following en bloc spondylectomy

  • Matthias Pumberger
  • Vikas Prasad
  • Claudia Druschel
  • Alexander C. Disch
  • Winfried Brenner
  • Klaus-Dieter Schaser
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this retrospective analyses was to evaluate the bone viability in the ventral column of the spine following large segmental defect reconstructions. Osseous integration of implants following spinal fusion procedures is an essential precondition to provide adequate mechanical strength to any applied forces and subsequently satisfying patient outcomes. Although CT scan is the non-invasive gold standard for fusion assessment, it lacks the ability to visualize bone viability and, therefore, discrepancy remains about sensitivity and specificity of CT as evaluation tool of spinal fusion.

Methods

A novel modality, 18F Fluoride PET/CT, specifically allows quantitative in vivo evaluation of metabolic activity of the osseous integration. Bone viability following large segmental reconstructions in patients after mono- and multi-level en bloc spondylectomies (EBS) was analyzed. Spinal fusion was assessed on plain radiographs and CT scans according to the FDA fusion criteria as well as 18F PET/CT.

Results

A total of eight patients underwent 18F PET/CT were included (one 4-level-, one 3-level, two 2-level and four 1-level EBS). The average follow-up between EBS and radiographic studies was 24.8 months. On plain radiographs and CT scans, successful fusion was confirmed in all patients. However, 18F PET/CT showed non-union in all cases. The metabolic bone activity within the cage was fourfold decreased compared to the reference vertebra, whereas the metabolic activity of the adjacent endplates was 1.6-fold increased compared to the reference vertebra.

Conclusion

This study suggests a discrepancy between fusion rates assessed by plain radiographs and CT scan compared to 18F PET/CT.

Keywords

En bloc spondylectomy 18F-Fluoride PET/CT Spine fusion Non-union Cage fusion Fusion assessment Bone viability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Boriani S, Weinstein JN, Biagini R (1997) Primary bone tumors of the spine. Terminology and surgical staging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1036–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Bisserie M, Judet T, Hautefort E, Mamoudy P (1981) Total excision of thoracic vertebrae (author’s transl). Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l’appareil moteur. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 67:421–430PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tomita K, Kawahara N, Baba H, Tsuchiya H, Fujita T, Toribatake Y (1997) Total en bloc spondylectomy. A new surgical technique for primary malignant vertebral tumors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melcher I, Disch AC, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, Tohtz S, Smolny M, Stockle U (2007) Primary malignant bone tumors and solitary metastases of the thoracolumbar spine: results by management with total en bloc spondylectomy. Eur Spine J 16:1193–1202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmoelz W, Schaser KD, Knop C, Blauth M, Disch AC (2010) Extent of corpectomy determines primary stability following isolated anterior reconstruction in a thoracolumbar fracture model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25:16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blumenthal SL, Gill K (1993) Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a second surgical look at lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:1186–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santos ER, Goss DG, Morcom RK, Fraser RD (2003) Radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:997–1001Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW (2008) Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J 8:570–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lusins JO, Danielski EF, Goldsmith SJ (1989) Bone SPECT in patients with persistent back pain after lumbar spine surgery. J Nucl Med 30:490–496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gemmel F, Rijk PC, Collins JM, Parlevliet T, Stumpe KD, Palestro CJ (2010) Expanding role of 18F-fluoro-D-deoxyglucose PET and PET/CT in spinal infections. Eur Spine J 19:540–551CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS (2007) Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 48:471–480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K (1995) Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine 20:1410–1418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan GH, Goss BG, Thorpe PJ, Williams RP (2007) CT-based classification of long spinal allograft fusion. Eur Spine J 16:1875–1881CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liljenqvist U, Lerner T, Halm H, Buerger H, Gosheger G, Winkelmann W (2008) En bloc spondylectomy in malignant tumors of the spine. Eur Spine J 17:600–609CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Disch AC, Pumberger M, Schmoelz W, Melcher I, Druschel C, Schaser KD (2012) Biomechanical aspects of complex reconstructions following radical resection of thoracolumbar spinal tumors. Orthopade 41:647–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Druschel C, Disch AC, Melcher I, Engelhardt T, Luzzati A, Haas NP et al (2012) Surgical management of recurrent thoracolumbar spinal sarcoma with 4-level total en bloc spondylectomy: description of technique and report of two cases. Eur Spine J 21:1–9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varga PP (2012) Expert’s comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled “Surgical management of recurrent thoracolumbar spinal sarcoma with 4-level total en bloc spondylectomy: description of technique and report of two cases” (by Claudia Druschel; Alexander C. Disch; Ingo Melcher; Tilmann Engelhardt; Alessandro Luzzati; Norbert P. Haas; Klaus-Dieter Schaser). Eur Spine J. 21:10–12Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2:653–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McAfee PC, Boden SD, Brantigan JW, Fraser RD, Kuslich SD, Oxland TR et al (2001) Symposium: a critical discrepancy-a criteria of successful arthrodesis following interbody spinal fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:320–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Sailer P (2007) Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of fine-cut CT scans with reconstructions to determine the status of an instrumented posterolateral fusion with surgical exploration as reference standard. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:892–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cook SD, Patron LP, Christakis PM, Bailey KJ, Banta C, Glazer PA (2004) Comparison of methods for determining the presence and extent of anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 29:1118–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, Davis RT, Alavi A, Treves ST (2008) Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med 49:68–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brenner W, Vernon C, Conrad EU, Eary JF (2004) Assessment of the metabolic activity of bone grafts with (18)F-fluoride PET. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. Eur Spine J 31:1291–1298Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fischer DR, Pfirrmann CW, Zubler V, Stumpe KD, Seifert B, Strobel K et al (2011) High bone turnover assessed by 18F-fluoride PET/CT in the spine and sacroiliac joints of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: comparison with inflammatory lesions detected by whole body MRI. EJNMMI Res. 2:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fischer DR, Zweifel K, Treyer V, Hesselmann R, Johayem A, Stumpe KD et al (2011) Assessment of successful incorporation of cages after cervical or lumbar intercorporal fusion with [(18)F]fluoride positron-emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Spine J 20:640–648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gamie S, El-Maghraby T (2008) The role of PET/CT in evaluation of Facet and Disc abnormalities in patients with low back pain using (18)F-Fluoride. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 11:17–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raizman NM, O’Brien JR, Poehling-Monaghan KL, Yu WD (2009) Pseudarthrosis of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:494–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Pumberger
    • 1
  • Vikas Prasad
    • 2
  • Claudia Druschel
    • 1
  • Alexander C. Disch
    • 1
  • Winfried Brenner
    • 2
  • Klaus-Dieter Schaser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Spine Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal SurgeryCharité, Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineCharité Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations