CT-Guided Microwave Ablation with Vertebral Augmentation for Spinal Metastases with Posterior Wall Defects
Xusheng Zhang,Jiacheng Niu,Jing Fan,Miaomiao Hu,Chao Xing,Qianqian Yuan,Shen Yang,Baohu Wang,Peishun Li,Qirong Man,Yanchen Ren,Linlin Wu,Kaixian Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s463266
IF: 2.8319
2024-09-01
Journal of Pain Research
Abstract:Xusheng Zhang, 1, &ast Jiacheng Niu, 2, &ast Jing Fan, 1 Miaomiao Hu, 1 Chao Xing, 1 Qianqian Yuan, 1 Shen Yang, 1 Baohu Wang, 1 Peishun Li, 1 Qirong Man, 1 Yanchen Ren, 1 Linlin Wu, 1 Kaixian Zhang 1 1 Department of Oncology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital Affiliated to Jining Medical College, Tengzhou, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China; 2 Medical Imaging Center, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital Affiliated to Jining Medical College, Tengzhou, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Kaixian Zhang, Email Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined microwave ablation (MWA) and vertebral augmentation (VA) in the treatment of spinal metastases with posterior wall defects. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted for 67 patients (42 men, 25 women) with painful spine metastases and posterior wall defects who underwent MWA combined with VA. Among these patients, 52 vertebrae had no epidural invasion and 33 had mild invasion but did not compress the spinal cord. Procedural effectiveness was determined by comparing visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores before the procedure and during the follow-up period. Results: The procedure was technically successful in all patients. The mean VAS score declined significantly from 6.85 ± 1.81 before the procedure to 3.27 ± 1.97 at 24 h, 1.96 ± 1.56 at 1 week, 1.84 ± 1.50 at 4 weeks, 1.73 ± 1.45 at 12 weeks, and 1.71 ± 1.52 at 24 weeks post-procedure (p < 0.01). The mean ODI score was lower post-procedure than before the procedure (p < 0.001). Transient nerve injury occurred in two patients (SIR classification D), and the incidence of asymptomatic bone cement (SIR classification A) was 43.5% (37/85). Conclusion: MWA combined with VA is an effective and safe treatment for painful spine metastases with posterior wall defects. Keywords: microwaves, vertebroplasty, spinal, metastases The spinal metastatic disease is a common complication of advanced malignant tumors, and the incidence of spinal metastasis is second only to lung metastasis and liver metastasis. 1 Osteolytic metastasis is the most common type of spinal metastasis, and approximately 31% of patients undergoing imaging examinations have damaged the posterior edge of the vertebral body. 2 These patients often have severe pain. When the lesions invade the spinal cord, they may be accompanied by neurological symptoms and paraplegia. Because of the short-life expectancy and poor quality of life for these patients, a minimally invasive approach is desirable. New therapeutic strategies that offer curative options have recently become available. Fast pain relief and prevention of spinal compression symptoms are the primary treatment goals for patients with posterior wall defects. Radiotherapy is the standard treatment plan for the spinal metastases. However, radiotherapy is effective in approximately 60% cases, and about half of these patients experience a recurrence of pain within one year. 3,4 Microwave ablation (MWA), radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and vertebral augmentation (VA) are commonly used minimally invasive treatments for spinal metastases. 5–8 During thermal ablation, the protective barrier of the spinal cord is lost because of the incomplete posterior margin of the vertebral body; therefore, the spinal cord may be caused temporary injury during this procedure. 9 Destruction of the posterior edge of the vertebral body is prone to bone cement leakage, which leads to spinal stenosis and is a relative contraindication to vertebroplasty Therefore, whether VA can be performed in patients with posterior edge destruction of the vertebral body is currently controversial. 10–13 Although MWA with VA has proven effective for controlling pain associated with spinal metastases, 14,15 there are few reports with regard to vertebral metastases with incomplete posterior edges of the vertebral body. Therefore, we analyzed the safety and effectiveness of MWA with VA in treating posterior edge destruction of the vertebral body and tumors invading the spinal canal but not compressing the spinal cord. This retrospective analysis was approved by the Institutional Review Committee of our hospital (Ethics number: 2020-Ethics Review-12). Informed consent was obtained from all patients before treatment. Medical records including demographic pain scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were obtained and reviewed. Overall, -Abstract Truncated-
clinical neurology