Skip to main content

Thoracic/Lumbar Deformity (Tumor) MIS Surgery Complication

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spinal Deformity
  • 953 Accesses

Abstract

Spinal metastases are becoming a more common operative condition as patients live longer, more effective therapies are developed, and data showing that surgical treatment in certain cases is superior to radiation alone has emerged. Surgical treatment often includes decompression, stabilization, and anterior column reconstruction for thoracolumbar metastasis. The utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques may lead to less pain postoperatively, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stays for patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hayat MJ, Howlader N, Reichman ME, Edwards BK. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Oncologist. 2007;12(1):20–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schiff D, O’Neill BP, Suman VJ. Spinal epidural metastasis as the initial manifestation of malignancy: clinical features and diagnostic approach. Neurology. 1997;49(2):452–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rose PS, Buchowski JM. Metastatic disease in the thoracic and lumbar spine: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(1):37–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harel R, Angelov L. Spine metastases: current treatments and future directions. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(15):2696–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):643–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Looker AC, Borrud LG, Dawson-Hughes B, Shepherd JA, Wright NC. Osteoporosis or low bone mass at the femur neck or lumbar spine in older adults: United States, 2005–2008. NCHS Data Brief. 2012;93:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pickhardt PJ, Pooler BD, Lauder T, del Rio AM, Bruce RJ, Binkley N. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(8):588–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schiff D, O’Neill BP, Wang CH, O’Fallon JR. Neuroimaging and treatment implications of patients with multiple epidural spinal metastases. Cancer. 1998;83(8):1593–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Assaker R. Minimal access spinal technologies: state-of-the-art, indications, and techniques. Joint Bone Spine. 2004;71(6):459–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus. 2006;20(3):E6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, Sciubba DM, Moller DJ, O’Shaughnessy BA, Li KW, et al. Maximizing the potential of minimally invasive spine surgery in complex spinal disorders. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kan P, Schmidt MH. Minimally invasive thoracoscopic approach for anterior decompression and stabilization of metastatic spine disease. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanter AS, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Technique, challenges and indications for percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(6):741–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Selznick LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(3):207–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lu DC, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. A comparison of mini-open and open approaches for resection of thoracolumbar intradural spinal tumors. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(6):758–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chou D, Lu DC. Mini-open transpedicular corpectomies with expandable cage reconstruction. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(1):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chou D, Lau D, Roy E. Feasibility of the mini-open vertebral column resection for severe thoracic kyphosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(5):841–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chou D, Wang VY. Trap-door rib-head osteotomies for posterior placement of expandable cages after transpedicular corpectomy: an alternative to lateral extracavitary and costotransversectomy approaches. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10(1):40–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bilsky MH, Lis E, Raizer J, Lee H, Boland P. The diagnosis and treatment of metastatic spinal tumor. Oncologist. 1999;4(6):459–69.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd Vogel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vogel, T., Ohya, J., Chou, D. (2018). Thoracic/Lumbar Deformity (Tumor) MIS Surgery Complication. In: Mummaneni, P., Park, P., Crawford III, C., Kanter, A., Glassman, S. (eds) Spinal Deformity . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60083-3_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60083-3_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60082-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60083-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics