Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cementoplasty of pelvic bone metastases: systematic assessment of lesion filling and other factors that could affect the clinical outcomes

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate lesion filling and other factors that could affect the clinical outcomes of cementoplasty for pelvic bone metastases.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the files of 40 patients treated for 44 pelvic bone metastases, collected the parameters related to patients (pain relief evaluated on a visual analog scale, subsequent fractures, and need for surgery), lesions (size, cortical breach score, fracture, soft-tissue extension), and cementoplasty procedures (number of needles, volume of cement, percentage of lesion filling, cement leaks, residual acetabular roof defect), and performed a statistical analysis.

Results

The lesions were on average 43.2 mm in diameter and the mean cortical breach score was 2.5 out of 6, with a pathological fracture in 14 lesions. The number of needles inserted was one in 32 out of 44, two in 10 out of 44, and three in 2 out of 44. On average, the volume of cement injected per lesion was 10.3 ml and the filling was 54.8%. Mild or moderate asymptomatic cement leakage occurred in 20 lesions (45.5%). The mean pain score was 84.2 mm before the procedure (with no correlation with lesion size, cortical breach score or fracture) and 45.6 mm at follow-up. The pain relief of 38.6 mm was statistically significant (p < 0.001) and did not correlate with the filling percentage. There were no fractures of the treated lesions at a mean follow-up of 355 days.

Conclusions

Cementoplasty of pelvic bone metastases appears effective for providing pain relief and may prevent subsequent fractures. We were unable to demonstrate a correlation between the lesion filling and the degree of pain relief.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cotten A, Duquesnoy B. Cimentoplastie percutanée des ostéolyses malignes du cotyle. Presse Med. 1995;24:1308–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weill A, Kobaiter H, Chiras J. Acetabulum malignancies: technique and impact on pain of percutaneous injection of acrylic surgical cement. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:123–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cotten A, Deprez X, Migaud H, Chabanne B, Duquesnoy B, Chastanet P. Malignant acetabular osteolyses: percutaneous injection of acrylic bone cement. Radiology. 1995;197:307–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Papagelopoulos PJ, Mavrogenis AF, Soucacos PN. Evaluation and treatment of pelvic metastases. Injury. 2007;38:509–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coleman RE. Management of bone metastases. Oncologist. 2000;5:463–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Harrington KD. The management of acetabular insufficiency secondary to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:653–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Anselmetti GC, Manca A, Ortega C, Grignani G, Debernardi F, Regge D. Treatment of extraspinal painful bone metastases with percutaneous cementoplasty: a prospective study of 50 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31:1165–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Basile A, Giuliano G, Scuderi V, et al. Cementoplasty in the management of painful extraspinal bone metastases: our experience. Radiol Med. 2008;113:1018–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Botton E, Edeline J, Rolland Y, et al. Cementoplasty for painful bone metastases: a series of 42 cases. Med Oncol. 2012;29:1378–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iannessi A, Amoretti N, Marcy PY, Sedat J. Percutaneous cementoplasty for the treatment of extraspinal painful bone lesion, a prospective study. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93:859–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marcy PY, Palussiere J, Descamps B, et al. Percutaneous cementoplasty for pelvic bone metastasis. Support Care Cancer. 2000;8:500–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hierholzer J, Anselmetti G, Fuchs H, Depriester C, Koch K, Pappert D. Percutaneous osteoplasty as a treatment for painful malignant bone lesions of the pelvis and femur. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:773–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maccauro G, Liuzza F, Scaramuzzo L, et al. Percutaneous acetabuloplasty for metastatic acetabular lesions. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Scaramuzzo L, Maccauro G, Rossi B, Messuti L, Maffulli N, Logroscino CA. Quality of life in patients following percutaneous PMMA acetabuloplasty for acetabular metastasis due to carcinoma. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75:484–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta AC, Hirsch JA, Chaudhry ZA, et al. Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous acetabuloplasty. J Neurointerv Surg. 2012;4:134–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi ES, Kim YI, Kang HG, Kim JH, Kim HS, Lin PP. Percutaneous cementoplasty for acetabulum in patients with bone metastasis. Acta Orthop Belg. 2017;83:480–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cotten A, Demondion X, Boutry N, et al. Therapeutic percutaneous injections in the treatment of malignant acetabular osteolyses. Radiographics. 1999;19:647–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moser T, Cohen-Solal J, Breville P, Buy X, Gangi A. Pain assessment and interventional spine radiology. J Radiol. 2008;89:1901–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee JS, Hobden E, Stiell IG, Wells GA. Clinically important change in the visual analog scale after adequate pain control. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:1128–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Colman MW, Karim SM, Hirsch JA, et al. Percutaneous acetabuloplasty compared with open reconstruction for extensive periacetabular carcinoma metastases. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:1586–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Onate Miranda M, Moser TP. A practical guide for planning pelvic bone percutaneous interventions (biopsy, tumour ablation and cementoplasty). Insights Imaging. 2018;9:275–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cotten A, Dewatre F, Cortet B, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteolytic metastases and myeloma: effects of the percentage of lesion filling and the leakage of methyl methacrylate at clinical follow-up. Radiology. 1996;200:525–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Belkoff SM, Mathis JM, Jasper LE, Deramond H. The biomechanics of vertebroplasty. The effect of cement volume on mechanical behavior. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:1537–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Liebschner MA, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM. Effects of bone cement volume and distribution on vertebral stiffness after vertebroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:1547–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kwon HM, Lee SP, Baek JW, Kim SH. Appropriate cement volume in vertebroplasty: a multivariate analysis with short-term follow-up. Korean J Neurotrauma. 2016;12:128–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Sun HB, Jing XS, Liu YZ, Qi M, Wang XK, Hai Y. The optimal volume fraction in percutaneous vertebroplasty evaluated by pain relief, cement dispersion, and cement leakage: a prospective cohort study of 130 patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture in the thoracolumbar vertebra. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:e677–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dalstra M, Huiskes R. Load transfer across the pelvic bone. J Biomech. 1995;28:715–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Deschamps F, de Baere T, Hakime A, et al. Percutaneous osteosynthesis in the pelvis in cancer patients. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:1631–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pusceddu C, Fancellu A, Ballicu N, Fele RM, Sotgia B, Melis L. CT-guided percutaneous screw fixation plus cementoplasty in the treatment of painful bone metastases with fractures or a high risk of pathological fracture. Skeletal Radiol. 2017;46:539–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Sepideh Babaei, MD, for the editorial assistance provided during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Thomas P. Moser, Marta Onate, Katia Achour & Véronique Freire

  2. Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Thomas P. Moser & Véronique Freire

Authors
  1. Thomas P. Moser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Onate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katia Achour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Véronique Freire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas P. Moser.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moser, T.P., Onate, M., Achour, K. et al. Cementoplasty of pelvic bone metastases: systematic assessment of lesion filling and other factors that could affect the clinical outcomes. Skeletal Radiol 48, 1345–1355 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-019-3156-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-019-3156-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation