Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar;14(1):148-154.
doi: 10.4055/cios21006. Epub 2022 Feb 15.

Three-Dimensional Endoscopy-Assisted Excision and Reconstruction for Metastatic Disease of the Dorsal and Lumbar Spine: Early Results

Affiliations

Three-Dimensional Endoscopy-Assisted Excision and Reconstruction for Metastatic Disease of the Dorsal and Lumbar Spine: Early Results

Sergey Lyulin et al. Clin Orthop Surg. 2022 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the role of three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy in surgical management of metastatic disease of the dorsal and lumbar spine.

Methods: This is a prospective study on 33 patients (15 men and 18 women, mean age of 61.6 ± 8.9 years) with biopsy-proven metastatic disease of the spine managed by sequential/staged posterior decompression-stabilization, followed by 3D endoscopy-assisted anterior corpectomy and stabilization with a mesh cage. All patients had significant extradural compression or spinal instability or both. Sixteen patients had neurological deficits. Visual analog scale (VAS), Frenkel grade (neurological deficits), Karnofsky performance status scale, and the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) were used for assessment preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months from surgery.

Results: At a mean follow-up of 1.7 ± 0.7 years from surgery, 18 patients were alive. VAS showed significant improvement at the latest follow-up compared to preoperative levels (4.39 vs. 6.61, p = 0.001). Karnofsky status did not show any significant improvement. Frenkel grade improved in 5 patients, deteriorated in 4 patients, and remained unchanged in 24 patients. Regarding SF-36 parameters, general health showed deterioration, but role functioning-physical, role functioning-emotional, social functioning, and body pain showed statistically significant improvement. There was no change in physical health, viability, and mental health. Subjectively the surgeons felt better depth perception and smoother surgical experience with the 3D optics technology. The only complication was delayed wound healing in three patients who had a previous history of radiotherapy to the surgical site.

Conclusions: 3D endoscopy is a valuable tool in the management of metastatic spinal disease requiring excision and reconstruction using the combined posterior and anterior approaches. These early results warrant confirmation with more data and longer follow-ups.

Keywords: Corpectomy; Spinal metastasis; Spine endoscopy; Thoracoscopy; Three dimensional endoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Preoperative imaging of a 70-year-old male patient with a history of bronchogenic carcinoma with metastatic fracture of D9 vertebra with pain (visual analog scale score 9) and neurological deficits (Frenkel grade C). (A) Magnetic resonance imaging, sagittal section. (B) Computed tomography, axial section.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Three-dimensional endoscopic view of the anterior defect following posterior decompression, stabilization, and endoscopic corpectomy.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Bridging of the defect with a carbon mesh cage.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Imaging at 3 months from surgery. (A) Computed tomography, sagittal section. (B) Computed tomography, coronal section. (C) Magnetic resonance imaging, sagittal section.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Clinical results at 3 months from surgery (visual analog scale score 6, Frenkel grade D). The patient was ambulant till he succumbed to progressive metastatic disease at 10 months from surgery.

References

    1. Perrin RG, Laxton AW. Metastatic spine disease: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and evaluation of patients. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2004;15(4):365–373. - PubMed
    1. Kurisunkal V, Gulia A, Gupta S. Principles of management of spine metastasis. Indian J Orthop. 2020;54(2):181–193. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Conti A, Acker G, Kluge A, et al. Decision making in patients with metastatic spine: the role of minimally invasive treatment modalities. Front Oncol. 2019;9:915. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Joaquim AF, Powers A, Laufer I, Bilsky MH. An update in the management of spinal metastases. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2015;73(9):795–802. - PubMed
    1. Molina CA, Gokaslan ZL, Sciubba DM. A systematic review of the current role of minimally invasive spine surgery in the management of metastatic spine disease. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:598148. - PMC - PubMed