This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BAUER, H. C. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BAUER, H. C. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 79:514-22 (1997)
© 1997 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Posterior Decompression and Stabilization for Spinal Metastases. Analysis of Sixty-seven Consecutive Patients*

HENRIK C. F. BAUER, M.D., PH.D.{dagger}, STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN

Investigation performed at the Oncology Service, Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm

The neurological function, survival, and rehabilitation of sixty-seven consecutive patients who had been managed operatively for spinal metastases with epidural compression were assessed. The epidural compression was in the thoracic spine in forty-one patients and in the lumbar spine in twenty-six. According to the system of Frankel et al. for the assessment of neurological function, twenty-six patients had a major neurological deficit (grade B or C), thirty-two had a minor deficit (grade D), and nine had no deficit (grade E). None of the patients had an operation to treat a pathological vertebral fracture without epidural compression. The operative treatment included wide decompression through a posterior approach followed by stabilization without bone-grafting. A Cotrel-Dubousset device was used in thirty-two patients; an Olerud posterior fixator, in sixteen; an Isola device, in twelve; and another device, in seven. The most common complication was wound infection (eleven patients). There were no perioperative or immediate postoperative deaths (within fourteen days). The rate of survival was 51 per cent (thirty-four of sixty-seven) at six months and 22 per cent (fifteen of sixty-seven) at twelve months. Over-all, forty-four of the fifty-eight patients who had had a neurological deficit preoperatively had complete or partial neurological recovery within the first two weeks postoperatively. The nine patients who had not had a neurological deficit preoperatively retained normal neurological function postoperatively. Thirty-eight of the forty-four patients who were alive at three months and twenty-nine of the thirty-four who were alive at six months were still able to walk. Thirty-nine of the forty-nine patients who survived more than two months were able to return home for a median of seven months. Fourteen patients had a reoperation on the spine. Six of these patients had recurrent epidural compression at another level of the spine, and five had recurrent compression at the previously treated level. Three patients had a reoperation because of loosening of the implant. The results of this study suggest that neurological function can be maintained or improved by decompression and stabilization through a posterior approach as treatment for spinal metastases.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
H. C. F. Bauer
Controversies in the surgical management of skeletal metastases
J Bone Joint Surg Br, May 1, 2005; 87-B(5): 608 - 617.
[Full Text] [PDF]