Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    

Users Online: 193 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 533-541

Therapeutic impact of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation on palliative surgery for metastatic spine tumors

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Yasuaki Tokuhashi
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1 Oyaguchi-Kamicho, Itabashi-Ku, Tokyo 173-8610
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_474_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation has been introduced into palliative surgery for metastatic spine tumors; however, the therapeutic effects of PPS on the outcomes of multidisciplinary treatment for such tumors are unclear. Therefore, the therapeutic impact of PPS was investigated among patients with metastatic spine tumors and with revised Tokuhashi scores of ≤8. Materials and Methods: A total of 47 patients who underwent conventional palliative surgery (posterior decompression and stabilization, 33; posterior stabilization alone, 14) before the introduction of PPS and 38 patients who underwent PPS (posterior decompression and stabilization, 19; posterior stabilization alone, 19) were included. Surgical stress (operative time, blood loss, complications, etc.) and treatment outcomes (postoperative survival time, visual analog scale scores, Frankel classification, and the Barthel index at the final followup) were compared between the conventional and PPS groups. Results: The age of the indicated patients significantly increased after the introduction of PPS (P < 0.05). Regarding posterior decompression and stabilization, there were no significant intergroup differences in surgical stress or treatment outcomes. As for posterior stabilization alone, there were significant preoperative differences in various parameters between the conventional and PPS groups (P < 0.01) and also significant postoperative intergroup differences between surgical stress and treatment outcomes (P < 0.01). Conclusions: For patients with early-stage metastatic spine tumors, the use of PPS-based posterior stabilization combined with multidisciplinary adjuvant therapy has changed the age range of the patients indicated for surgery and caused significant improvements in surgical stress, postoperative survival time, and Barthel index.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal