metricas
covid
Buscar en
Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología The role of minimally invasive spine surgery in the treatment of vertebral meta...
Información de la revista
Vol. 67. Núm. 6.
Páginas S523-S531 (noviembre - diciembre 2023)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
915
Vol. 67. Núm. 6.
Páginas S523-S531 (noviembre - diciembre 2023)
Spinal monograph
Acceso a texto completo
The role of minimally invasive spine surgery in the treatment of vertebral metastasis (Part 1): A clinical review
El papel de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva de columna en el tratamiento de las metástasis vertebrales (parte 1): una revisión clínica
Visitas
915
A. Carrascosa-Granadaa,
Autor para correspondencia
amaca3582@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, D. Garríguez Perezb, A. Vargas-Jiméneza, R. Luque Perezb, D.O. Martínez-Olascoagoab, J.L. Pérez Gonzálezb, I. Domínguez Estebanb, F. Marco Martínezb
a Departamento de Neurocirugía, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
b Departamento de Traumatología y Cirugía Ortopédica, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
Contenido relacionado
A. Carrascosa-Granada, D. Garríguez Perez, A. Vargas Jimenez, R. Luque Perez, D.O. Martínez-Olascoagoa, J.L. Perez Gonzalez, I. Domínguez Esteban, F. Marco Martínez
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (7)
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Tablas (2)
Table 1. SINS.
Table 2. Comparative studies between MIS and OS for the treatment of spinal metastases.
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Abstract

Spinal metastases represent a significant burden on the quality of life in patients affected by active oncological disease due to the high incidence of pain syndromes, spinal deformity, and neurological impairment. Surgery plays a decisive role in improving quality of life by controlling pain, restoring neurological function and maintaining spinal stability, as well as contributing to the response to medical therapy. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a treatment option in certain patients with high surgical risk since it has a low rate of complications, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, and offers similar results to open surgery.

In this review, we present the role of MIS in this pathology and some cases treated in our hospital.

Keywords:
Spinal metastasis
Minimally invasive spine surgery
Open surgery
Resumen

Las metástasis espinales representan una importante carga sobre la calidad de vida en los pacientes afectados por una enfermedad oncológica activa, debido a la alta incidencia de síndromes dolorosos, deformidad espinal y deterioro neurológico. La cirugía juega un papel determinante a la hora de mejorar la calidad de vida mediante el control del dolor, el restablecimiento de la función neurológica y el mantenimiento de la estabilidad espinal, además de contribuir a la respuesta de la terapia médica. La cirugía mínimamente invasiva es una opción de tratamiento en determinados pacientes con alto riesgo quirúrgico, ya que tiene una baja tasa de complicaciones, de sangrado intraoperatorio, de estancia hospitalaria y ofrece resultados similares a la cirugía abierta.

Presentamos en esta revisión el papel de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en esta enfermedad, y algunos casos tratados en nuestro centro hospitalario.

Palabras clave:
Metástasis espinal
Cirugía mínimamente invasiva
Cirugía abierta
Texto completo
Introduction

In the USA, 1.6 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed annually, with a mortality rate of about 50%, and significant disease-related burden.1,2 Spinal metastatic involvement is one of the most frequent complications of oncological disease, and is increasingly prevalent due to improved complementary treatments (chemotherapy and hormone therapy, among others) resulting in improved patient survival.3 After lung and liver involvement, the spine is the most frequent site of metastasis, mainly secondary to prostate, lung, and breast tumours, the latter two being the most frequent primary neoplasms.4 Between 30% and 90% of cancer patients develop spinal metastases; however, despite their high prevalence, only 10% of these patients have symptoms associated with metastatic involvement, 50% require some form of treatment, and between 5% and 10% require surgical treatment.5

Spinal involvement

There are different mechanisms of tumour dissemination. These are primarily haematogenous, contiguous invasion, or pathological seeding in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).3 This dissemination is closely related to the nature and behaviour of the primary tumour, and haematogenous dissemination is the most frequent mechanism due to the important arterial vascularisation of the vertebral bodies, which enables tumour cells to migrate from their site of origin to the vertebral body where the metastatic deposit occurs. Dissemination through Batson's venous plexus is also possible due to the extensive communication between this structure and other venous drainage beds (portal system, azygos vein, intercostal veins, vena cava, renal vein, among others), which facilitates the lodging of tumour cells.6 Whether secondary to the arterial or venous route, it is important to bear in mind that this type of dissemination leads to multicentric spinal involvement.5

Clinical presentation

The clinical presentation of spinal metastases can vary. However, the predominant symptom in patients with spinal involvement is pain, present in up to 95% of cases,5,7 which may be local, mechanical, or radicular. This symptom may precede the onset of neurological symptoms by days to weeks. Careful assessment of pain characteristics is vital to differentiate between local pain secondary to tumour growth, mechanical pain secondary to impending or established segmental instability, and radicular or spinal symptoms associated with compression of neurological structures.5

Motor dysfunction is the second most common symptom in spinal metastatic involvement. Weakness in one or more muscle groups is present in up to 85% of patients at diagnosis and may be due to myelopathy, radiculopathy, or a combination of both.7

Treatment

There are different treatment modalities for spinal metastases (chemo-radiotherapy, radiosurgery, among others) and medical specialties. The therapeutic decision also depends on multiple factors, including the clinical condition of the patient (assessable using the Karnofsky Performance Score),8 life expectancy,8–10 location, and control of the primary tumour, the predominant symptoms of metastatic involvement, the extent of spinal involvement, among others; a surgical decision is acceptable in patients with a life expectancy of more than 3–6 months.11

In most cases, the spine is one of the multiple organs affected by oncological activity, and therefore the main objective of medical and surgical treatment is not curative but palliative, to ensure the patient's safety and quality of life.11–14

Surgical treatment of spinal metastases should aim to improve or cure pain, maintain, or improve neurological function, and maintain or restore spinal stability (surgery being the only means available) in a way that is long-lasting, considering the patient's life expectancy, with an acceptable morbidity rate.3

The Spine Oncology Study Group (SOSG) defines neoplastic spinal instability as the “loss of spinal integrity as a result of a neoplastic process that is associated with movement-related pain, symptomatic or progressive deformity and/or neurological compromise under physiological loads”.15

The presence of spinal instability is a surgical indication for stabilisation irrespective of the degree of epidural compression (assessable using the ESCC scale). This degree of instability is assessed using the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) score (Table 1), which assesses clinical and radiographic parameters and, although it does not recommend any specific type of treatment, it enables the surgeon to identify and treat those patients who may be at risk of developing spinal instability and secondary deformities15 (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

SINS.

Component  Description  Score 
LocationOccipital-C2, C7-T12, T11-L1 or L5-S1 
Mobile spine (C3–C6, L2–L4) 
Semi-rigid spine (T3–T10) 
Rigid spine (S2–S5) 
PainYes 
Occasional mechanical pain 
Painless 
Bone lesionLytic 
Mixed (lythic/blastic) 
Blastic 
Radiographic spinal alignmentSubluxation/translation 
New deformity (kyphosis/scoliosis) 
Normal 
Vertebral body collapse>50% 
<50% 
No collapse with >50% body involved 
None of the above 
Posterolateral involvementBilateral 
Unilateral 
None of the above 

SINS: Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score.

Figure 1.

Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS). The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score helps in the assessment of tumour-related spinal instability. A SINS of 7–18 requires surgical assessment to evaluate spinal instability before proceeding with any planned radiation treatment.

(0.22MB).

Advances in surgical techniques have resulted in the development of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of spinal oncological disease, ensuring better preservation of adjacent muscle tissue, reduced operative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, better pain control, and reduced postoperative opioid consumption. In general, it offers patients faster and better-quality recovery.2,16

Comparison of the results of open surgery vs. MIS shows, in addition to the abovementioned benefits, that there is a similar rate of results in terms of neurological improvement,17–21 which could demonstrate that MIS is a viable therapeutic option in certain patients who are not suitable for open surgery due to age, frailty, comorbidities, extent of disease, or low life expectancy, and is considered part of combined multidisciplinary treatment (separation surgery). However, these results should be interpreted with caution as there is currently a lack of level I evidence to make a strong recommendation on the widespread use of MIS,11 and therefore each case must be tailored to the individual.

To date, we have found 9 studies published in the literature comparing open surgery vs. MIS in the treatment of spinal metastases. These are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Comparative studies between MIS and OS for the treatment of spinal metastases.

    Patients (n)          Minimally invasive surgeryOpen surgeryStatistical differences 
Author  Year  OS  MIS  Surgical indication  Surgical procedure  Location  Surgical outcome included  Post-operative outcome included  Surgery time (min)  Blood loss (ml)  Pre/post VAS  Global survival  Complications.  Surgery time  Blood loss  Pre/post VAS  Global survival  Complications   
Huang et al.  2006  17  29  Untreatable pain, neurological deficit  MIS corpectomy vs. open corpectomy  T3-T12  Surgery time (min), blood loss (ml)  Stay in ICU, neurological function  179 (120–250)  1100 (200–4300)  27.4 (1–82) months  20.6% (n=6) CSF fistula, pneumothorax, pseudoarthrosis, tumour recurrence, tumour progression,  180 (120–315)  1162 (300–3.000)  24.8 (1–76)  29% (n=5) sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, pneumothorax, gastrointestinal bleeding  Stay in ICU MIS (n=2) vs. open surgery (n=12) (p.0001) 
Fang et al.  2012  17  24  Neurological deficit, untreatable pain or imminent or present fracture  Mini-open corpectomy vs. open spondylectomy  T5-L2  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml)  Global survival (months), neurological function (ASIA), visual analogue scale (VAS)  175±38  1058±263  8.5/1.5  19.8±8.8 months (range: 6–36 months)  29.2% (n=7) (pleural effusion, intercostal neuralgia, atelectasis, wound infection)  403±55  1721±293  8.5/2  15.3±3.9 months (range: 8–24 months)  11.8% (n=2) CSF fistula, worsened ASIA  Surgery time (p=.0001), blood loss (p=.0001) 
Lau et al.  2015  28  21  Spinal instability, oncological treatment failure, spinal cord compression, neurological deficit  Mini-open corpectomy vs. open corpectomy  Thoracic spine  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml)  Hospital stay, neurological function (ASIA)  452.4  916.7  9.5%. Any unexpected event requiring medical or surgical treatment within the first 30 peri-operative days  413.6  1697.3  21.4% any unexpected event requiring medical or surgical treatment within the first 30 peri-operative days  Blood loss (p=.019). Hospital stay MIS (7.4 days) vs. open surgery (11.4 dias) (p=.001) 
Miscusi et al.  2015  19  23  Acute myelopathy  Laminectomy MIS+percutaneous arthrodesis vs. open laminectomy+arthrodesis  Thoracic spine  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml)  Neurological function (ASIA), visual analogue scale (VAS), quality of life (QOLC-30)  132 (90–180)  240 (180–400)  Improved 74% to stable 22%  4.3% (n=1) urinary tract infection  192 (150–270)  900 (350–1500)  Improved 53% to stable 37%  0%  Pre- and post-operative pain (p=.007). Blood loss (p=.01). Surgery time (p=.01). Transfusions MIS n=0) vs. open surgery (n=12) (p=.01). Improved QOL MIS vs. open surgery (p=.009) 
Hansen-Algenstaedt et al.  2017  30  30  Instability, untreatable pain. Neurological compression (deficit or pain), progressive deformity  Laminectomy±corpectomy (thorascopy – XLIF)+percutaneous arthrodesis vs. laminectomy±corpectomy+open arthrodesis  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml), instrumented segments, decompressed segments, fluoroscopy (s)  VAS, hospital stay, transfused patients, ASIA  190.9±78.4  1156.0±572.3  6.7±2.2/1.5±2.2  23.3% (n=7) CSF fistula, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, neurological impairment  220.4±57.9  2062.1±1148.0  7.0±2.5/2.4±2.1  40% (n=12) surgical wound infection, CSF fistula, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, neurological impairment  Instrumented segments MIS (5.5±3.1) vs. open surgery (3.8±1.7) (p=.012). Blood loss (p.001). Transfused patients MIS (40 vs. 76.7%) (p=.002). Fluoroscopy MIS (116s) vs. open surgery (69s) (p=.002). Hospital stay MIS (11±5) vs. open surgery (21.1±.8) (p.001) 
Hikata et al.  2017  25  25  Untreatable pain, instability, pathological fracture  Laminectomy+percutaneous arthrodesis vs. laminectomy+open arthrodesis  Thoraco-lumbar  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml)  VAS, neurological status (Frankel)  204.6±55.4  340.1±302.5  7.3±2.4/2.7±2.8  28% at end of follow-up (9.9±8.2 months)  12% (n=3) surgical bed haematoma, neurological deficit, massive bleed (>1000ml)  188.9±43.6  714.3±545.9  7.2±2.9/2.2±1.3  30% at the end of follow-up (11.0±11.8 months)  44% (n=11) massive bleed (>1000ml), surgical bed haematoma, neurological deficit  Blood loss (p=.005). Bedrest MIS (2.0±1.5 days) vs. open surgery (3.6±1.6 days) (p.001) 
Kumar et al.  2017  18  27  Neurological deficit and/or spinal instability  Laminectomy+percutaneous arthrodesis vs. laminectomy+open arthrodesis  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml), number of screws, decompressed levels  VAS, neurological status (Frankel), hospital stay  253 (215–290)  184 (121–247)  7±2.1/1.8±1.5  7.5 months (8d–20 months)  3% surgical wound infection  269 (217–321)  961 (548–1374)  7±2.8/3.5±2.0  12 months (1–48 months)  16% surgical wound infection  Blood loss (p.001). Pain control pre- and post-operative VAS (p.001) 
Saadeh et al.  2019  20  20  Untreatable pain, spinal instability, neurological impairment, spinal cord compression  Laminectomy±mini-open corpectomy+mini-open arthrodesis vs. Laminectomy±corpectomy+open arthrodesis  Cervico-thoracic-lumbar  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml)  VAS, ASIA, hospital stay  296±16  805±138  Decrease 1.71 points±.5  6 months  30%  266±26  1732±359  Increase .33 points±.7  8 months  45%  Blood loss (p=.019). Greater postoperative pain in open surgery (p=.018) 
Morgen et al.  2022  26  23  Spinal cord compression  Laminectomy+percutaneous arthrodesis vs. laminectomy+open arthrodesis  T5-L3  Surgery duration (min), blood loss (ml)  Global survival (months)  142 (72–203)  175 (30–800)  21.3 (1.3–49.9) months  8.6% (n=2)  103 (59–435)  500 (100–2.000)  15.3 months (.96–45.5)  7.69% (n=2)  Blood loss (p=.002). Surgery time (p=.01). 

MIS: minimally invasive surgery; OS: open surgery; VAS: visual analogue scale.

Clinical case 1

A 46-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer attended the emergency department for progressive loss of strength in the lower limbs until she was unable to ambulate at <24h (SOSG) from onset.

Physical examination: Lower limb (R/L): hip flexion 3-/3-, hip extension 5/5, knee extension 5/5, knee flexion 5/5, dorsal and plantar flexion 5/5, and sensory level D6.

An emergency MRI of the dorsal spine was performed, which showed multilevel involvement of the dorsal spine (infiltrative lesions) also associated with pathological fractures at levels D8 and D11; causing spinal cord compression at D8 level with radiological myelopathy from D7 to D9 (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Sagittal (left) and axial (right) T2-weighted sequence of dorsolumbar MRI showing multiple metastatic lesions with lesion in D8 invading the spinal canal, vertebral body, pedicles, transverse process, and lamina.

(0.11MB).

Emergency surgical treatment was performed by unipedicular left kyphoplasty D7, D8, and D9 (because the right pedicle was destroyed by tumour mass) and bilateral pedicular D10–D11 (Fig. 3). Minimally invasive “over the top” D8–D9 laminectomy, entering on the right side and performing bilateral decompression through a unilateral approach, with resection of the posterior epidural tumour, of fibrous consistency, highly vascularised, and adherent to the dura mater. Intraoperative blood loss was 40cc and surgical time was 3h.

Figure 3.

Postoperative AP (left)/lateral (centre) dorsolumbar X-ray and dorsolumbar percutaneous wounds (right).

(0.09MB).

The postoperative period was uneventful, and the patient made good general progress over the 10-month follow-up period, with progressive improvement of strength in the lower limbs and recovery of sensory level at the level of D11.

Clinical case 2

A 69-year-old man with a history of stage IV lung carcinoma and overweight, who attended the emergency department for disabling dorsolumbar pain refractory to the usual analgesia. An MRI scan was performed which showed a metastatic L1 lesion without fracture. He was treated by the oncology department with palliative radiotherapy and a dorsolumbar brace. One year after this treatment, he was readmitted for disabling pain without evidence of neurological deficit, with clinical pain, and disability scales VAS 10/10 and ODI 78/100. He was on fentanyl patches 75μg/h and oral morphine sulphate (MST) 90mg/every 12h for pain management.

During his admission, he underwent a further MRI, which showed L1 fracture with posterior wall rupture, invasion of the spinal canal and compression of the conus medullaris (Fig. 4). In addition, there was evidence of multilevel metastatic involvement (D12 involvement with wedging of the superior plate and 2 other foci at L3 and L5, without fracture). He required intravenous perfusion of morphine chloride at 10mg/h for incapacitating pain.

Figure 4.

Sagittal (left image) and axial (right image with cut at L1) T2-weighted sequence of dorsolumbar MRI showing metastatic lesions at D12, L1, L3 with compression of the conus medullaris at L1 level by tumour mass anterior to the thecal sac and by pedicle invasion.

(0.12MB).

MIS was decided and an “over the top” L1 laminectomy was performed, preferring the right side due to the greater tumour involvement evident on the MRI and bilateral decompression through a unilateral approach, left unipedicular D12 kyphoplasty and percutaneous transpedicular fixation of bilateral D11, left unilateral D12, bilateral L2 and L3 (Fig. 5) with intraoperative blood loss of less than 30cc, and surgery time of 4h.

Figure 5.

Postoperative lateral (left image)/AP (centre image) X-rays and percutaneous wounds (right image).

(0.12MB).

The patient made good postoperative progress, with a follow-up of 6 months, no postoperative complications (neurological deficit or wound dehiscence) and it was possible to progressively decrease intravenous opioids achieving optimal analgesia with oral MST 10mg/every 12h, with postoperative assessment scales of VAS: 3/10 and ODI: 38/100.

Clinical case 3

A 72-year-old woman with a history of ovarian cancer and overweight, admitted to another hospital for disabling dorsolumbar pain managed with usual analgesia and fentanyl patch 50μg/72h, requiring intravenous perfusion of morphine chloride at 6mg/h, and transferred to our centre for treatment. On arrival she presented pain scores VAS: 8/10 and disability (ODI): 68/100. Examination showed no neurological deficit.

Dorsolumbar MRI showed metastatic involvement in the vertebral bodies of L1 and L2; with L2 fracture with subsidence of the right L2 plate. At L1 level, invasion of the spinal canal on the left side and left L1 and L2 pedicle fracture (Fig. 6).

Figure 6.

Sagittal (left image) and axial (centre image with cut at L1) T2-weighted sequence of dorsolumbar MRI showing metastatic lesions at L1 and L2 with compression of the conus medullaris at L1 level by tumour mass anterior to the thecal sac and by left pedicle invasion.

(0.11MB).

MIS surgery was decided, performing a left L1 hemilaminectomy through a left tubular approach, with a heavily bleeding bone lesion, with difficult haemostasis, right L2 kyphoplasty and elevating the upper plate to improve scoliosis and percutaneous transpedicular cemented fixation of bilateral D11 and D12, right L1 and L2, bilateral L3 (Fig. 7). Intraoperative blood loss of 200cc and surgery time of 4h.

Figure 7.

AP (left image) and lateral (central image) X-rays showing bilateral percutaneous cemented fixation D11–D12, right L1–L2, bilateral L3–L4, and percutaneous wounds (right image).

(0.14MB).

The patient's postoperative progress was satisfactory, over a follow-up of 3 months she has not presented postoperative complications, the morphine pump and fentanyl patches have been discontinued. The postoperative clinical scores show improvement of pain VAS: 3/10 and ODI: 20/100.

Discussion

MIS in the treatment of selected cases of spinal metastases has revolutionised the traditional surgical treatment of this disease because it has made it possible to safely and effectively intervene in certain patients who previously might not have been considered surgical candidates. MIS offers advantages over classic techniques, including less blood loss and shorter hospital stays (ICU and general hospitalisation), and a downward trend in complications, while offering similar results to open surgery in terms of pain control (assessed using the VAS scale), overall survival, and improvement or preservation of neurological status (assessed using the ASIA and Frankel scales). Only one study, to date, has reported differences in quality of life in favour of MIS over open surgery, which could infer a greater impact of MIS on the quality of life of patients affected by this devastating disease in the final stages of their lives.21

However, it is important to point out that mastering the MIS technique requires a significant learning curve. This is reflected in the comparative table of MIS vs. open surgery, which does not show a significant difference in surgical time, and MIS involves time, dedication, and training, variables that could interfere with outcomes and prolonged surgery times in the first cases.

In selecting the surgical technique, it is important to emphasise the relevance of the direct and indirect costs of each procedure, so as to determine economic differences when choosing the type of procedure.

Metastatic spinal disease poses an economic challenge for healthcare systems due to the high cost of providing treatment. In Europe, specifically in Denmark, costs range from €36,616 to €87,814 per patient over their survival depending on the treatment received, with specific costs of €36,616 (€33,835–€39,583) for conservative treatment; €49,632 (€42,287–€57,767) for decompression surgery; €70,997 (€62,244–€82,354) for decompression surgery+artrodesis and €87,814 (€76,638–€101,528) for decompression+artrodesis+reconstruction surgery, taking into account that the longer the global survival, the higher the cost of care. It is very important to highlight that hospital stay could represent up to 65% of the total expenditure for the patient, and this item is an objective when it comes to reducing direct costs, followed by follow-up visits, which account for up to 31% of total costs.22

At present, there are no studies available in the databases reviewed that compare the direct costs of MIS vs. open surgery specifically in the treatment of cancer of the spine.23 However, there are studies available comparing the associated costs of both techniques in spinal fusion. Lucio et al. evaluated the difference in hospital costs between MIS and open surgery in spinal fusion procedures in 210 patients, 101 undergoing open surgery and 109 undergoing MIS. They found a higher direct instrumental cost for MIS compared to open surgery at 3810.76US$ (approximately €3500), 27% of the total cost of the procedure. However, they observed that the costs for operating theatres, surgical supplies, and expenses associated with hospital stay was lower for MIS over open surgery by 2756.50US$ (56%), 955.64US$ (45%), and 788.51US$ (52%), approximately €2500, €880, and €726, respectively. They also observed a lower rate of transfusions, re-interventions, and residual events (complications), resulting in an estimated reduction of 2825US$ (approximately €2600) at the end of the hospital and surgical process, and an estimated 10% reduction in the total cost of the surgical process.24

In another study, Vertuani et al. compared spinal fusion in patients undergoing surgery in the UK and in Italy. Their cost analysis included the resources used for each patient and their procedure, including surgical costs (operating rooms, consumables and prostheses, technical equipment, transfusions, surgical drainage), hospital resources (hospital bed and peri-operative medication), and surgical complications. The direct costs derived from surgical material in Italy for MIS was €3137 compared to €2684 for open surgery, with a difference of €453 in favour of open surgery, and in the UK the associated costs were €2856 vs. €2135 with a difference of €721 in favour of open surgery. Despite a trend towards open surgery being more economically favourable in terms of direct costs associated with instruments, in the United Kingdom a lower total cost associated with MIS vs. open surgery was observed (€13,399 vs. €15,065) and the same phenomenon occurred in Italy (€10,012 vs. €10,985), with a difference in favour of MIS of €1666 and €973 for each country, respectively. This is because a decrease in the rate of complications and transfusions (which are more frequent in open surgery), and a reduction in hospital stay compensates for the increase in the unit value of the material for MIS compared to open surgery. However, despite a trend towards cost-effectiveness of MIS, when the value of MIS material exceeds €4111 per patient in Italy and €4578 in the UK, the cost saving benefit for the healthcare system ceases to exist.25 It is vitally important to know the budget required for the optimal treatment of each patient, individualising their requirements, because healthcare costs directly impact the sustainability of the system.

Conclusions

There is currently no solid, high-quality evidence to support the widespread use of MIS for the treatment of spinal metastases, but the advantages it offers in terms of early patient recovery, shorter hospital stay, lower risk of postoperative infection, and less postoperative opioid use mean that these approaches can be considered in the management of selected cases of fragile cancer patients. Prospective randomised clinical trials are needed to demonstrate the benefits of MIS surgery over traditional surgery for it to be implemented as routine surgical treatment, because it is currently used only in selected cases.

At present there are no economic studies comparing the cost-benefit of MIS in oncological disease. However, the evidence available on spinal fusion could infer a trend towards lower final health costs using MIS compared to open surgery due to a lower rate of post-surgical complications and blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay, despite the clearly higher unit cost per patient of the material required to perform MIS compared to open surgery. However, to maintain the cost-efficiency of the surgical indication for MIS, it is important to set a limit on the cost of instruments, because exceeding €4000 per case could result in a loss of economic benefit compared to traditional surgery.

Level of evidence

Level of evidence ii.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Funding

The authors declare that they have received no funding for the conduct of the present research, the preparation of the article, or its publication.

References
[1]
American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2013. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2013/cancer-facts-and-figures-2013.pdf [consulted 4.12.22].
[2]
N. Kumar, R. Malhotra, A.S. Zaw, K. Maharajan, N. Naresh, A. Kumar, et al.
Evolution in treatment strategy for metastatic spine disease: presently evolving modalities.
Eur J Surg Oncol, 43 (2017), pp. 1784-1801
[3]
L.R. Gomes Vialle, Z.L. Gokaslan, S. Boriani, C.G. Fiher.
AOSpine masters series metastatic spinal tumors.
Thieme, (2015),
[4]
V.M. Lu, M.A. Alvi, A. Goyal, P. Kerezoudis, M. Bydon.
The potential of minimally invasive surgery to treat metastatic spinal disease versus open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
World Neurosurg, 112 (2018), pp. e859-e868
[5]
D.M. Sciubba, R.J. Petteys, M.B. Dekutoski, C.G. Fisher, M.G. Fehlings, S.L. Ondra, et al.
Diagnosis and management of metastatic spine disease.
J Neurosurg Spine, 13 (2010), pp. 94-108
[6]
F. Arguello, R.E. Duerst, K. McQueen, C.N. Frantz, R.B. Baggs, L. Johnstone.
Pathogenesis of vertebral metastasis and epidural spinal cord compression.
[7]
S. Helweg-Larsen, P.S. Sørensen.
Symptoms and signs in metastatic spinal cord compression: a study of progression from first symptom until diagnosis in 153 patients.
Eur J Cancer, 30 (1994), pp. 396-398
[8]
Y. Tokuhashi, H. Uei, M. Oshima.
Classification and scoring systems for metastatic spine tumors: a literature review.
Spine Surg Relat Res, 1 (2017), pp. 44-55
[9]
H.C.F. Bauer, R. Wedin.
Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases: prognostication in 241 patients.
Acta Orthop Scand, 66 (1995), pp. 143-146
[10]
A. Leithner, R. Radl, G. Gruber, M. Hochegger, K. Leithner, H. Welkerling, et al.
Predictive value of seven preoperative prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases.
Eur Spine J, 17 (2008), pp. 1488-1495
[11]
Z. Pennington, A.K. Ahmed, C.A. Molina, J. Ehresman, I. Laufer, D.M. Sciubba.
Minimally invasive versus conventional spine surgery for vertebral metastases: a systematic review of the evidence.
Ann Transl Med, 6 (2018), pp. 103
[12]
A. Phanphaisarn, J. Patumanond, J. Settakorn, P. Chaiyawat, J. Klangjorhor, D. Pruksakorn.
Prevalence and survival patterns of patients with bone metastasis from common cancers in Thailand.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 17 (2016), pp. 4335-4340
[13]
V. Pointillart, J.-M. Vital, R. Salmi, A. Diallo, G.M. Quan.
Survival prognostic factors and clinical outcomes in patients with spinal metastases.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 137 (2011), pp. 849-856
[14]
S.B. Yang, W. Cho, U.-K. Chang.
Analysis of prognostic factors relating to postoperative survival in spinal metastases.
J Korean Neurosurg Soc, 51 (2012), pp. 127
[15]
C.G. Fisher, C.P. DiPaola, T.C. Ryken, M.H. Bilsky, C.I. Shaffrey, S.H. Berven, et al.
A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 35 (2010), pp. E1221-E1229
[16]
O. Adogwa, S.L. Parker, A. Bydon, J. Cheng, M.J. McGirt.
Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
J Spinal Disord Tech, 24 (2011), pp. 479-484
[17]
T. Fang, J. Dong, X. Zhou, R.A. McGuire, X. Li.
Comparison of mini-open anterior corpectomy and posterior total en bloc spondylectomy for solitary metastases of the thoracolumbar spine.
J Neurosurg Spine, 17 (2012), pp. 271-279
[18]
N. Hansen-Algenstaedt, M.K. Kwan, P. Algenstaedt, C.K. Chiu, L. Viezens, T.S. Chan, et al.
Comparison between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for patients with spinal metastasis.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 42 (2017), pp. 789-797
[19]
T. Hikata, N. Isogai, Y. Shiono, H. Funao, E. Okada, N. Fujita, et al.
A retrospective cohort study comparing the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive versus open surgical techniques in the treatment of spinal metastases.
Clin Spine Surg A Spine Publ, 30 (2017), pp. E1082-E1087
[20]
N. Kumar, R. Malhotra, K. Maharajan, A.S. Zaw, P.H. Wu, M.C. Makandura, et al.
Metastatic spine tumor surgery: a comparative study of minimally invasive approach using percutaneous pedicle screws fixation versus open approach.
Clin Spine Surg A Spine Publ, 30 (2017), pp. E1015-E1021
[21]
M. Miscusi, F.M. Polli, S. Forcato, L. Ricciardi, A. Frati, M. Cimatti, et al.
Comparison of minimally invasive surgery with standard open surgery for vertebral thoracic metastases causing acute myelopathy in patients with short- or mid-term life expectancy: surgical technique and early clinical results.
J Neurosurg Spine, 22 (2015), pp. 518-525
[22]
L.S. Tipsmark, C.E. Bünger, M. Wang, S.S. Morgen, B. Dahl, R. Søgaard.
Healthcare costs attributable to the treatment of patients with spinal metastases: a cohort study with up to 8 years follow-up.
BMC Cancer, 15 (2015), pp. 354
[23]
A.S. Chung, A. Ballatori, B. Ortega, E. Min, B. Formanek, J. Liu, et al.
Is less really more? Economic evaluation of minimally invasive surgery.
Glob Spine J, 11 (2021), pp. 30S-36S
[24]
J.C. Lucio, R.B. Vanconia, K.J. Deluzio, J.A. Lehmen, J.A. Rodgers, W.B. Rodgers.
Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period.
Risk Manag Healthc Policy, 65 (2012),
[25]
S. Vertuani, J. Nilsson, B. Borgman, G. Buseghin, C. Leonard, R. Assietti, et al.
A cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive versus open surgery techniques for lumbar spinal fusion in Italy and the United Kingdom.
Value Heal, 18 (2015), pp. 810-816
Copyright © 2023. SECOT
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos