Advertisement

Neurosurgical Review

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 131–137 | Cite as

Circumferential stabilization with ghost screwing after posterior resection of spinal metastases via transpedicular route

  • Alparslan Senel
  • Ahmet Hilmi Kaya
  • Enis Kuruoglu
  • Fahrettin Celik
Original Article

Abstract

Various surgical methods have been described for treating spinal metastases, namely, en bloc spondylectomy, minimally invasive techniques, and anterior and posterior approaches. The main goals in surgical intervention for these lesions are tumor removal and establishment of strong, durable stabilization. The least invasive method is always preferred. Posterior transpedicular spondylectomy meets all these needs, as this method achieves tumor excision and stabilization of the anterior and posterior spine through one posterior incision and in the same surgical session. The surgeon circumferentially excises a spinal metastasis and then achieves circumferential stabilization in the same session. Numerous circumferential stabilization methods have been used to date, including placement of free bone grafts or cages or acrylic grafts, or insertion of an acrylic graft supported by a Steinmann pin anteriorly and by posterior transpedicular fixators or a Luque rectangle posteriorly. This article describes seven cases of spinal metastasis in which an alternative circumferential stabilization technique known as “ghost screwing” was performed. The first step in this method is circumferential decompression, achieved with laminectomy followed by eggshell corpectomy via the transpedicular route. Then a short segmental transpedicular stabilization system is fixed to the vertebrae cranial and caudal to the laminectomy/corpectomy defect. Prior to fixing the rods in place, an additional screw is mounted on each rod such that the screw shaft protrudes into the defect space. Once the rods are fixed and the two extra screws are optimally positioned, acrylic bone cement is introduced into the defect site, encasing the ghost screws and forming an anterior graft upon hardening. The outcomes in our cases were excellent. All seven patients had uneventful postoperative periods and all experienced pain relief and were able to mobilize early. Direct connection of the anterior acrylic graft to the posterior fixation system via ghost screws makes this system strong and durable, and prevents subsidence or horizontal displacement of the graft. Such complications can be serious issues with other circumferential systems that use independent anterior and posterior fixators.

Keywords

Spinal metastases Posterior approach Circumferential stabilization 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Adams M, Sonntag VKH (2001) Surgical treatment of metastatic cervical spine disease. Contemp Neurosurg 23:1–5Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akeyson EW, McCutcheon IE (1996) Single-stage posterior vertebrectomy and replacement combined with posterior instrumentation for spinal metastasis. J Neurosurg 85:211–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilsky MH, Boland P, Lis E, Raizer JJ, Healey JH (2000) Single-stage posterolateral transpedicle approach for spondylectomy, epidural decompression, and circumferential fusion of spinal metastases. Spine 25:2240–2249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Binning MJ, Gottfried ON, Klimo P Jr, Schmidt MH (2004) Minimally invasive treatments for metastatic tumors of the spine. Neurosurg Clin N Am 15:459–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bridwell KH, Jenny AB, Saul T, Rich KM, Grubb RL (1988) Posterior segmental spinal instrumentation (PSSI) with posterolateral decompression and debulking for metastatic thoracic and lumbar spine disease. Limitations of the technique. Spine 13:1383–1394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cahill DW, Kumar R (1999) Palliative subtotal vertebrectomy with anterior and posterior reconstruction via a single posterior approach. J Neurosurg 90:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cybulski GR, Stone JL, Opesanmi O (1991) Spinal cord decompression via a modified costotransversectomy approach combined with posterior instrumentation for management of metastatic neoplasms of the thoracic spine. Surg Neurol 35:280–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fourney DR, Gokaslan ZL (2003) Spinal instability and deformity due to neoplastic conditions. Neurosurg Focus 14(1):e8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fourney DR, Gokaslan ZL (2004) Anterior approaches for thoracolumbar metastatic spine tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am 15:443–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Welch WC, Brufsky AM, Lembersky BC, Ozhasoglu C, Vogel WJ (2005) Single-fraction radiosurgery for the treatment of spinal breast metastases. Cancer 104:2244–2254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerszten PC, Welch WC (2000) Current surgical management of metastatic spinal disease. Oncology 14:1013–1024PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gokaslan ZL, York JE, Walsh GL, McCutcheon IE, Lang FF, Putnam JB Jr, Wildrick DM, Swisher SG, Abi-Said D, Sawaya R (1998) Transthoracic vertebrectomy for metastatic spinal tumors. J Neurosurg 89:599–609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harrington K (1988) Anterior decompression and stabilization of the spine as a treatment for vertebral body collapse and spinal cord compression for metastatic malignancy. Clin Orthop 233:177–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanayama M, Ng JT, Cunningham BW et al (1999) Biomechanical analysis of anterior versus circumferential spinal reconstruction for various anatomic stages of tumor lesions. Spine 24:445–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klimo P Jr, Dailey AT, Fessler RG (2004) Posterior surgical approaches and outcomes in metastatic spine-disease. Neurosurg Clin N Am 15:425–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klimo P Jr, Schmidt MH (2004) Surgical management of spinal metastases. Oncologist 9:188–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marmor E, Rhines LD, Weinberg JS, Gokaslan ZL (2001) Total en bloc lumbar spondylectomy. Case report. J Neurosurg 95:264–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLain RF (1998) Endoscopically assisted decompression for metastatic thoracic neoplasms. Spine 23:1130–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLain RF (2001) Spinal cord decompression: an endoscopically assisted approach for metastatic tumors. Spinal Cord 39:482–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moore A, Uttley D (1989) Anterior decompression and stabilization of the spine in malignant disease. Neurosurgery 24:713–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muhlbauer M, Pfisterer W, Eyb R, Knosp E (2000) Minimally invasive retroperitoneal approach for lumbar corpectomy and anterior reconstruction. Technical note. J Neurosurg 93:161–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muhlbauer M, Pfisterer W, Eyb R, Knosp E (2000) Noncontiguous spinal metastases and plasmocytomas should be operated on through a single posterior midline approach, and circumferential decompression should be performed with individualized reconstruction. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 142:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nilsson S, Norlen BJ, Widmark A (2004) A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 43:316–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ, Mohiuddin M, Young B (2005) Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 366:643–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rades D, Stalpers LJ, Veninga T, Rudat V, Schulte R, Hoskin PJ (2006) Evaluation of functional outcome and local control after radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 175:552–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rompe JD, Hopf CG, Eysel P (1999) Outcome after palliative posterior surgery for metastatic disease of the spine-evaluation of 106 consecutive patients after decompression and stabilisation with the Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119:394–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenthal D, Marquardt G, Lorenz R, Nichtweiss M (1996) Anterior decompression and stabilization using a microsurgical endoscopic technique for metastatic tumors of the thoracic spine. J Neurosurg 84:565–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schoeggl A, Reddy M, Matula C (2002) Neurological outcome following laminectomy in spinal metastases. Spinal Cord 40:363–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S, Kawano H, Ohsaka S (1990) Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine 15:1110–1113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tomita K, Kawahara N, Baba H, Tsuchiya H, Nagata S, Toribatake Y (1994) Total en bloc spondylectomy for solitary spinal metastases. Int Orthop 18:291–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walsh GL, Gokaslan ZL, McCutcheon IE, Mineo MT, Yasko AW, Swisher SG, Schrump DS, Nessbit JC, Putnam JB Jr, Roth JA (1997) Anterior approaches to the thoracic spine in patients with cancer: indications and results. Ann Thorac Surg 64: 1611–1618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yao KC, Boriani S, Gokaslan ZL, Sundaresan N (2003) En bloc spondylectomy for spinal metastases: a review of techniques. Neurosurg Focus 15(5):E6PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alparslan Senel
    • 1
  • Ahmet Hilmi Kaya
    • 1
    • 2
  • Enis Kuruoglu
    • 1
  • Fahrettin Celik
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Department of NeurosurgerySamsun Ondokuzmayis UniversitySamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Ondokuzmayis Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Norosirurji ABDKurupelit-SamsunTurkey

Personalised recommendations