English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

OBJECTIVE The treatment of cervical spinal metastases represents a controversial issue regarding the type, extent, and invasiveness of interventions. In the lumbar and thoracic spine, kypho- and vertebroplasties have been established as minimally invasive procedures for patients with metastases to the vertebral bodies and without neurological deficit. These procedures show good results with respect to pain reduction and low complication rates. However, limited data are available for kypho- and vertebroplasties for cervical spinal metastases. In an effort to add to existing data, the authors here present a case series of 14 patients who were treated for osteolytic metastases of the cervical spine using vertebroplasty alone or in addition to another surgical procedure involving the cervical spine in a palliative setting to reduce pain and restore stability. METHODS Fourteen patients consisting of 8 males and 6 females, with a mean age of 64.7 years (range 44-85 years), were treated with vertebroplasty at the authors' clinic between January 2015 and November 2016. In total, 25 vertebrae were treated with vertebroplasty: 10 C-2, 5 C-3, 2 C-4, 2 C-5, 3 C-6, and 3 C-7. Two patients had an additional posterior stabilization and 5 patients an additional anterior stabilization. In 13 cases, the surgical approach was a modified Smith-Robinson approach; in 1 case, the cement was injected into the corpus axis from posteriorly. Patients with osteolytic defects of the posterior wall of the vertebral body did not undergo surgery, nor did patients with neurological deficits. Preoperatively, on the 2nd day after surgery, and at the follow-up, neck pain was rated using the visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS Twelve patients were examined at follow-up (mean 9 months). Neck pain was rated as a mean of 6.0 (range 3-8) preoperatively, 2.9 on Day 2 after surgery (range 0-5), and 0.5 at the follow-up (range 0-4), according to the VAS. The mean Neck Disability Index at follow-up was 3.6% (range 0%-18%). CONCLUSIONS Anterior vertebroplasty of the cervical spine via an anterolateral approach represents a safe and minimally invasive procedure with a low complication rate and appears suitable for reducing pain and restoring stability in cases of cervical spinal metastases. Vertebroplasties can be combined with other anterior and posterior operations of the cervical spine and, in the axis vertebra, can be performed transpedicularly from posteriorly. Thus, in cases in which the posterior wall of the vertebral body is intact, vertebroplasty represents a less invasive alternative to vertebral replacement in oncological surgery. Prospective randomized trials with a longer follow-up period and a larger patient cohort are needed to confirm the encouraging results of this case series.

Cervical vertebroplasty for osteolytic metastases as a minimally invasive therapeutic option in oncological surgery: outcome in 14 cases