Basic concepts in metal work failure after metastatic spine tumour surgery
The development of spinal implants marks a watershed in the evolution of metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS), which has evolved from standalone decompressive laminectomy to instrumented stabilization and decompression with reconstruction when necessary. Fusion may not be feasible after MSTS due to poor quality of graft host bed along with adjunct chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy postoperatively. With an increase in the survival of patients with spinal tumours, there is a probability of an increase in the rate of implant failure. This review aims to help establish a clear understanding of implants/constructs used in MSTS and to highlight the fundamental biomechanics of implant/construct failures.
Published literature on implant failure after spine surgery and MSTS has been reviewed. The evolution of spinal implants and their role in MSTS has been briefly described. The review defines implant/construct failures using radiological parameters that are practical, feasible, and derived from historical descriptions. We have discussed common modes of implant/construct failure after MSTS to allow further understanding, interception, and prevention of catastrophic failure.
Implant failure rates in MSTS are in the range of 2–8%. Variability in patterns of failure has been observed based on anatomical region and the type of constructs used. Patients with construct/implant failures may or may not be symptomatic and present either as early (< 3months) or late failures (> 3months). It has been noted that not all the implant failures after MSTS result in revisions.
Based on the observed radiological criteria and clinical presentations, we have proposed a clinico-radiological classification for implant/construct failure after MSTS.
KeywordsMetastatic spine tumour surgery Symptomatic implant failure Asymptomatic implant failure Early failure Late failure
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 3.Street J, Lenehan B, Berven S, Fisher C (2010) Introducing a new health-related quality of life outcome tool for metastatic disease of the spine: content validation using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health; on behalf of the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine 35:1377–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Steffee AD, Biscup RS, Sitkowski DJ (1986) Segmental spine plates with pedicle screw fixation. A new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:45–53Google Scholar
- 21.Wang JC, Boland P, Mitra N, Yamada Y, Lis E, Stubblefield M, Bilsky MH (2004) Single-stage posterolateral transpedicular approach for resection of epidural metastatic spine tumors involving the vertebral body with circumferential reconstruction: results in 140 patients. Invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1:287–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Mesfin A, Sciubba DM, Dea N, Nater A, Bird JE, Quraishi NA, Fisher CG, Shin JH, Fehlings MG, Kumar N, Clarke MJ (2016) Changing the adverse event profile in metastatic spine surgery: an evidence-based approach to target wound complications and instrumentation failure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(Suppl 20):S262–S270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Greenberg EJC, Chu FCH, Dwyer AJ, Ziminski EM, Dimich AB, Laughlin JS (1972) Effects of radiation therapy on bone lesions as measured by 47Ca and 85Sr local kinetics. J Nucl Med 13:747–751Google Scholar
- 49.Kumar N, Malhotra R, Maharajan K, Zaw AS, Wu PH, Makandura MC, Po Liu GK, Thambiah J, Wong HK (2017) Metastatic spine tumor surgery: a comparative study of minimally invasive approach using percutaneous pedicle screws fixation versus open approach. Clin Spine Surg 30(8):E1015–1021PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 64.Le H, Balabhadra R, Park J, Kim D (2003) Surgical treatment of tumors involving the cervicothoracic junction. Neurosurg Focus 15:1–7Google Scholar
- 69.Shen FH, Marks I, Shaffrey C, Ouellet J, Arlet V (2008) The use of an expandable cage for corpectomy reconstruction of vertebral body tumors through a posterior extracavitary approach: a multicenter consecutive case series of prospectively followed patients. Spine J 8:329–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar