Next Article in Journal
A Thoracic Outlet Syndrome That Concealed a Glioblastoma. Findings from a Case Report
Next Article in Special Issue
Bipolar Radiofrequency Ablation of Painful Spinal Bone Metastases Performed under Local Anesthesia: Feasibility Regarding Patient’s Experience and Pain Outcome
Previous Article in Journal
Early and Late Outcomes after Arterial Switch Operation: A 40-Year Journey in a Single Low Case Volume Center
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ablation Zone Involution of Liver Tumors Is Faster in Patients Treated with Irreversible Electroporation Than Microwave Ablation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Percutaneous Image-Guided Vertebral Fixation in Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Case Series Study

1
Department of Interventional Radiology and Oncology, Tenon Hospital, Sorbonne Université, 75020 Paris, France
2
Department of Radiology, Saint Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université, 75012 Paris, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 14 June 2021 / Revised: 3 August 2021 / Accepted: 26 August 2021 / Published: 30 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Interventional Oncology)

Abstract

:
Background and objectives: Cancer-related vertebral compression fractures (VCF) may cause debilitating back pain and instability, affecting the quality of life of cancer patients. To further drive cement deposition during vertebroplasty, the aims of this restrospective case series study were to report the feasibility, safety and short term efficacy (≤6 months) of percutaneous vertebral fixation in cancer-related vertebral compression fractures using various intravertebral implants. Methods: All consecutive cancer patients treated with percutaneous vertebral fixation for VCF were retrospectively included. Various devices were inserted percutaneously under image guidance and filled by cement. Descriptive statistics were used and a matched paired analysis of pain scores was performed to assess for changes following interventions. Results: A total of 18 consecutive patients (12 women (66.6%) and 6 men (33.3%); mean age 59.7 ± 15.5 years) were included. A total of 42 devices were inserted in 8 thoracic and 16 lumbar vertebrae. Visual analogue scale measurement significantly improved from 5.6 ± 1.8 preoperatively to 1.5 ± 1.7 at 1 week (p < 0.01) and to 1.5 ± 1.3 at 6 months (p < 0.01). No severe adverse events were observed, but three adjacent fractures occurred between 1 week and 5 months after implantation. Conclusions: Percutaneous vertebral fixation of cancer-related VCF is feasible and safe and allows pain relief.

1. Introduction

Debilitating back pain and instability may be observed in cases of cancer-related vertebral compression fractures (VCF), affecting the quality of life of cancer patients [1]. It may lead to reduced overall survival [2]. Despite concerns about their safety and efficacy, interventional radiology procedures such as percutaneous vertebroplasty improve the clinical outcomes of cancer patients [3]. However, vertebroplasty alone appears insufficient to adequately drive the cement deposition and to correct the structural deformities observed after VCF [4]. Cement leakage may be observed in cases of lytic lesions involving the posterior wall of the vertebral body, and the height of the vertebrae is often not restored, leading to further instability [5].
So far, several other percutaneous techniques have been proposed to further improve cement deposition and stabilization of cancer-related VCFs, mainly by using intravertebral devices such as balloon kyphoplasty, and more recently, implants [6,7,8,9]. Such implants have been already evaluated in osteoporotic VCFs but scarcely in cancer patients [10]. The purpose of this case-series study was to report the feasibility, safety and short-term efficacy (≤6 months) of percutaneous vertebral fixation using various intervertebral implants in cancer-related VCFs.

2. Materials and Methods

From 2019 to 2021, all consecutive cancer patients with symptomatic VCFs who had vertebral fixation using intravertebral implants were retrospectively included in this monocentric institutional review board-approved case series study. Patients were considered eligible for inclusion if they presented with VCF involving the lower thoracic and/or lumbar vertebrae; collapse of vertebrae <50%; spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) ≥7 [11,12]; and had at least a 6-month clinical and radiological follow-up.
Patients were excluded if vertebral body collapse was >50%; if the location was on the cervical spine or rigid spine (S2-5); if patients presented with neurological symptoms requiring urgent open surgical decompression; or if patients had a general contraindication to anesthesia. All patients gave their written informed consent before treatment. Population characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Preoperative evaluation included clinical examination and an imaging exploration including a Computed Tomography (CT) scan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) when feasible.
All interventions were performed under general anesthesia and cone-beam computed tomography guidance (Innova IGS540, General Electrics, Milwaukee, WI, USA). One or two 10 G bone trocarts (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) were directly inserted into the vertebral body via a mono or a bilateral transpedicular approach in the lumbar spine or an intercostal approach in the thoracic spine. A blunt guidewire was placed, and a device-specific drill mounted on a working cannula was advanced manually on it into the vertebral body until the desired position was reached, located 5 mm from the anterior wall as assessed on a lateral X-rays view. After the drill and the guidewire were removed, the devices were inserted through the cannula. Three different intravertebral implants were used: Spinejack® (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) (Figure 1); V-Strut® (Hyprevention, Pessac, France) (Figure 2); and KIVA® (IZI medical, Owing Mills, MD, USA) (Figure 3). These devices are detailed in [6] and their differences in [4]. They were carefully deployed in order to ensure correct placement and control potential posterior wall protrusion. The implants were released and filled by Poly-Methyl-Methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement (Vertaplex HV, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA for Spinejack® or Osteofix, IZI medical, Owing Mills, MD, USA for KIVA® and V-strut®), slowly injected through a cannula.
Procedure-related adverse events were systematically assessed according to Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) guidelines [13]. A clinical follow-up was performed after the intervention to evaluate pain relief and functional improvements, in addition to an imaging exploration.

3. Results

A total of 18 patients were included in this study (12 women [66.6%] and 6 men (33.3%), mean age: 59.7 ± 15.5 years (interquartile range (IQR): 53.3–70.8). A total of 7 patients received radiation therapy before treatment and 5 after.
A total of 42 implants (30 Spinejack®, 10 V-strut® and 2 Kiva®) were inserted in 24 levels: 16 lumbar (66.7%) and 8 thoracic vertebrae (33.3%). Synchronous fractures were treated by vertebroplasty during the same procedure in 9 patients (50%) for a total of 19 levels in upper vertebra in 6 patients (33.3%) and lower vertebra in 12 patients (66.6%). One patient received electrochemotherapy of the vertebral tumor at the same time.
Mean fluoroscopy time (FT) was 15.6 ± 7.9 min (11–19.8), mean kerma area product (KAP) was 34.6 ± 23.1 Gy.cm2 (20.2–42.5) and mean air kerma dose (AK) was 358.3 ± 240.6 mGy (218.5–422.5).
No patients were lost to the follow-up at 6 months. Mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score significantly improved from 5.6 ± 1.8 preoperatively to 1.5 ± 1.7 at 1 week (p < 0.01) and to 1.5 ± 1.3 at 6 months (p < 0.01) (Figure 4). At the follow-up CT scan, seven patients (38.9%) presented PMMA cement venous leakages without any clinical consequence (ten posterolateral, three posterior, one anterior, two intradiscal leakages) (grade 1 complications). Vertebral height restoration was observed only after Spinejack® implantation in eight patients (44.4% total but 72.7% of the patients who received Spinejack®), with a gain in height of 5.7 ± 2.2 mm in mean (4.5–7).
No major procedure-related complications (grade ≥3) occurred in the immediate post-operative period. Three patients (16.7%) developed a secondary adjacent level fracture: at one week of bipedicular Spinejack® implantation (Patient 9, grade 3 complication), at 1 month (Patient 5, grade 2 complication) and at 5 months (Patient 3, grade 2 complication) of bipedicular V-strut® implantations. Two additional procedures were performed in two of these patients: a vertebroplasty in Patient 3 and a bipedicular Spinejack® insertion in Patient 9.

4. Discussion

In cancer-related VCFs, vertebral fixation appears to be feasible, safe and effective to achieve short-term pain palliation, whatever the intravertebral implants used. By improving cement deposition and stability, intravertebral implantation of these devices avoids further complications, even when vertebrae are involved extensively by the tumors.
Performing vertebral fixation appears not challenging and may be further implemented in routine. However, these procedures required general anesthesia [14,15]. The mean KAP 34.6 ± 23.1 Gy.cm2 (20.2–42.5), mean AK 358.3 ± 240.6 mGy (218.5–422.5) and mean FT of 15.6 ± 7.9 min (11–19.8) calculated in this study were lower to the reference strandards required by the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom in interventional radiology for a vertebroplasty in 1 level (KAP: 60 Gy.cm2, AK: 610 mGy and FT: 9 min) or 3 or more levels (110 Gy.cm2, 1160 mGy and 14 min) [16,17]. While further studies are needed to validate these results, the use of such intravertebral implants may further help to standardize the procedures without increasing dosage [18].
In terms of adverse events, few asymptomatic cement leakages were observed. In the case of V-strut® implantation, it was probably related to the low viscosity of the cement used during the procedure. A careful selection and preparation of cement in addition to an improved imaging monitoring may help to reduce such leakages. Besides, three patients had adjacent fractures after device implantation. Such fractures are well-known complications that have already been reported in the literature after vertebroplasty or vertebral augmentation [19]. These are possibly related to the progression of the disease but also to the modifications of the local constraints induced by the cement and the intravertebral devices. Further studies on larger cohorts are needed to confirm the cause of such events, which might help to better select the patients for vertebral fixation [20,21].
Several limitations of this study may be considered. While the purpose of all the devices remained similar, all three devices used in this study have different designs, which may explain some of the differences observed. KIVA® ensures structural correction by filling large intravertebral lesions [10]. V-strut® aims to transfer the load to the posterior column, facilitating stabilization [8,22]. Spinejack® is designed to homogeneously restore the vertebral height and correct the kyphosis by creating a unidirectional craniocaudal thrust force focused on the points of compression without unnecessary damages to the trabecular bone [19,23]. Despite that pain relief was obtained in most of the patients, it remains difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the clinical efficacy on pain for the technique of fixation by itself, especially in such a small population, as patients with cancer-related VCFs usually have various treatments during the course of the disease such as morphinics, ablation or radiation therapy [2]. However, a significant effect of vertebral augmentation for cancer-related VCFs was demonstrated in a review compared to non-surgical management, radiofrequency ablation or chemotherapy alone [10]. Other limitations were related to the retrospective and monocentric design of the case series as well as the short-term follow-up.

5. Conclusions

Percutaneous vertebral fixation of cancer-related VCFs is feasible and safe, whatever the intravertebral implants used. Fixation allows short-term pain relief. Further larger series are needed to better assess the performance of these procedures and select the adequate technique for a specific patient.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.H.C.; methodology, F.H.C.; software, F.H.C.; validation, F.H.C.; formal analysis, F.H.C.; writing—original draft preparation, F.H.C.; writing—review and editing, F.H.C., L.R., M.B.A., S.E.-M., F.G., M.N. and M.B.; supervision, F.H.C.; project administration, F.H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board under the number CRM-2106-175, 12 July 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data of the study are present at the Departement of Interventional Radiology and Oncology at Tenon Hospital. The data will be available upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Filippiadis, D.K.; Cornelis, F.H.; Kelekis, A. Interventional oncologic procedures for pain palliation. La Presse Med. 2019, 48, e251–e256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cornelis, F.H.; Tutton, S.; Filippiadis, D.; Kelekis, A. Metastatic Osseous Pain Control: Bone Ablation and Cementoplasty. Semin. Interv. Radiol. 2017, 34, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tsoumakidou, G.; Too, C.W.; Koch, G.; Caudrelier, J.; Cazzato, R.L.; Garnon, J.; Gangi, A. CIRSE Guidelines on Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2017, 40, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cornelis, F.H.; Joly, Q.; Nouri-Neuville, M.; Ben-Ammar, M.; Kastler, B.; Kastler, A.; Amoretti, N.; Hauger, O. Innovative Spine Implants for Improved Augmentation and Stability in Neoplastic Vertebral Compression Fracture. Medicina 2019, 55, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kelekis, A.; Álvarez, L.G.; Filippiadis, D.K.; Santiago, F.R. Interventional Procedures of the Spine. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2014, 18, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Filippiadis, D.K.; Marcia, S.; Ryan, A.; Beall, D.P.; Masala, S.A.; Deschamps, F.; Kelekis, A. New Implant-Based Technologies in the Spine. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2018, 41, 1463–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Anselmetti, G.C.; Manca, A.; Tutton, S.; Chiara, G.; Kelekis, A.; Facchini, F.R.; Russo, F.; Regge, D.; Montemurro, F. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation assisted by PEEK implant in painful osteolytic vertebral metastasis involving the vertebral wall: Experience on 40 patients. Pain Phys. 2013, 16, E397–E404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cornelis, F.H.; Barral, M.; Le Huec, J.C.; Deschamps, F.; De Baere, T.; Tselikas, L. Percutaneous Transpedicular Fixation by PEEK Polymer Implants Combined with Cementoplasty for Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Pilot Study. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2021, 44, 642–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cornelis, F.H.; Petitpierre, F.; Fabre, T.; Gille, O.; Amoretti, N.; Hauger, O. Percutaneous low-pressure bone stenting to control cement deposition in extensive lytic lesions. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 3942–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mattie, R.; Brar, N.; Tram, J.T.; McCormick, Z.L.; Beall, D.P.; Fox, A.; Saltychev, M. Vertebral Augmentation of Cancer-Related Spinal Compression Fractures. Spine 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sahgal, A.; Atenafu, E.; Chao, S.; Al-Omair, A.; Boehling, N.; Balagamwala, E.H.; Cunha, M.; Thibault, I.; Angelov, L.; Brown, P.; et al. Vertebral Compression Fracture After Spine Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: A Multi-Institutional Analysis with a Focus on Radiation Dose and the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 3426–3431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fisher, C.G.; DiPaola, C.P.; Ryken, T.C.; Bilsky, M.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Berven, S.H.; Harrop, J.S.; Fehlings, M.; Boriani, S.; Chou, D.; et al. A Novel Classification System for Spinal Instability in Neoplastic Disease. Spine 2010, 35, E1221–E1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Filippiadis, D.K.; Binkert, C.; Pellerin, O.; Hoffmann, R.T.; Krajina, A.; Pereira, P.L. Cirse Quality Assurance Document and Standards for Classification of Complications: The Cirse Classification System. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2017, 40, 1141–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cornelis, F.H.; Monard, E.; Moulin, M.-A.; Vignaud, E.; Laveissiere, F.; Ben Ammar, M.; Nouri-Neuville, M.; Barral, M.; Lombart, B. Sedation and analgesia in interventional radiology: Where do we stand, where are we heading and why does it matter? Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2019, 100, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cornelis, F.H.; Najdawi, M.; Ben Ammar, M.; Nouri-Neuville, M.; Lombart, B.; Lotz, J.-P.; Cadranel, J.; Barral, M. Integrative Medicine in Interventional Oncology: A Virtuous Alliance. Medicina 2020, 56, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Miller, D.L.; Kwon, D.; Bonavia, G.H. Reference Levels for Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology: Proposed Initial Values for U.S. Practice. Radiology 2009, 253, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Etard, C.; Bigand, E.; Salvat, C.; Vidal, V.; Beregi, J.P.; Hornbeck, A.; Greffier, J. Patient dose in interventional radiology: A multicentre study of the most frequent procedures in France. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 4281–4290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Cornelis, F.; Razakamanantsoa, L.; Ben Ammar, M.; Lehrer, R.; Haffaf, I.; El-Mouhadi, S.; Gardavaud, F.; Najdawi, M.; Barral, M. Ergonomics in Interventional Radiology: Awareness Is Mandatory. Medicina 2021, 57, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Renaud, C. Treatment of vertebral compression fractures with the cranio-caudal expandable implant SpineJack®: Technical note and outcomes in 77 consecutive patients. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2015, 101, 857–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Rodrigues, L.; Cornelis, F.; Chevret, S. Hip Fracture Prevention in Osteoporotic Elderly and Cancer Patients: An On-Line French Survey Evaluating Current Needs. Medicina 2020, 56, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Rodrigues, L.; Cornelis, F.H.; Reina, N.; Chevret, S. Prevention of Pathological Fracture of the Proximal Femur: A Systematic Review of Surgical and Percutaneous Image-Guided Techniques Used in Interventional Oncology. Medicina 2019, 55, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Aebi, M.; Maas, C.; Treuheim, T.D.P.V.; Friedrich, H.; Wilke, H.-J. Comparative biomechanical study of a new transpedicular vertebral device and vertebroplasty for the treatment or prevention of vertebral compression fractures. Clin. Biomech. 2018, 56, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Premat, K.; Perre, S.V.; Cormier, Évelyne; Shotar, E.; Degos, V.; Morardet, L.; Fargeot, C.; Clarençon, F.; Chiras, J. Vertebral augmentation with the SpineJack® in chronic vertebral compression fractures with major kyphosis. Eur. Radiol. 2018, 28, 4985–4991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Spinejack® implantation in a 49-year-old woman (Patient 18) with breast carcinoma metastasis of L2. (A) Sagittal reconstruction of the computed tomography, arrow. (B) The two devices were inserted under fluoroscopy into the vertebral body via a bilateral transpedicular approach. (C) After deployment and cement injection, the height of the vertebrae was restored.
Figure 1. Spinejack® implantation in a 49-year-old woman (Patient 18) with breast carcinoma metastasis of L2. (A) Sagittal reconstruction of the computed tomography, arrow. (B) The two devices were inserted under fluoroscopy into the vertebral body via a bilateral transpedicular approach. (C) After deployment and cement injection, the height of the vertebrae was restored.
Medicina 57 00907 g001
Figure 2. V-strut® implantation in a 54-year-old woman (Patient 5) with breast carcinoma metastasis of L4. (A) The two devices were inserted into the vertebral body via a bilateral transpedicular approach until the desired position of 5 mm from the anterior wall, arrow. (B) A posterior cement leakage was observed on final cone beam computed tomography reconstruction, arrow. (C) Results are presented as means ± standard deviations. A matched paired analysis of visual analogue scale scores was performed to assess for changes in pain following interventions using Student’s t-test. Results were considered statistically significant when p-values < 0.05. Data analysis was performed using Stata 20.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Drive, TX, USA).
Figure 2. V-strut® implantation in a 54-year-old woman (Patient 5) with breast carcinoma metastasis of L4. (A) The two devices were inserted into the vertebral body via a bilateral transpedicular approach until the desired position of 5 mm from the anterior wall, arrow. (B) A posterior cement leakage was observed on final cone beam computed tomography reconstruction, arrow. (C) Results are presented as means ± standard deviations. A matched paired analysis of visual analogue scale scores was performed to assess for changes in pain following interventions using Student’s t-test. Results were considered statistically significant when p-values < 0.05. Data analysis was performed using Stata 20.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Drive, TX, USA).
Medicina 57 00907 g002
Figure 3. KIVA® implantation in L2 in a 57-year-old man (Patient 16) with myeloma. (A) sagittal reconstruction of CT scan. (B) The device (arrow) was inserted into the vertebral body under fluoroscopy via a monolateral transpedicular approach. (C) After deployment of the device, the cement was injected via injection.
Figure 3. KIVA® implantation in L2 in a 57-year-old man (Patient 16) with myeloma. (A) sagittal reconstruction of CT scan. (B) The device (arrow) was inserted into the vertebral body under fluoroscopy via a monolateral transpedicular approach. (C) After deployment of the device, the cement was injected via injection.
Medicina 57 00907 g003
Figure 4. Pain evolution at 1 and 6 months after treatment, assessed by visual analogue scale scores for each patient. Mean visual analogue scale score significantly improved from 5.6 ± 1.8 preoperatively to 1.5 ± 1.7 at 1 week (p < 0.01) and to 1.5 ± 1.3 at 6 months (p < 0.01).
Figure 4. Pain evolution at 1 and 6 months after treatment, assessed by visual analogue scale scores for each patient. Mean visual analogue scale score significantly improved from 5.6 ± 1.8 preoperatively to 1.5 ± 1.7 at 1 week (p < 0.01) and to 1.5 ± 1.3 at 6 months (p < 0.01).
Medicina 57 00907 g004
Table 1. Population characteristics and procedure outcomes.
Table 1. Population characteristics and procedure outcomes.
PatientsAgeGenderLocation of Primary TumorLocationSINSDevice (Number of Device)Associated ProceduresLocationAdverse Events of Vertebral Fixation (Grade)Treatment of Adverse Event (Number of Device)
159FemaleBreastL210V-strut® (2)ElectrochemotherapyL2Cement leakage (1)-
253FemaleBreastL48V-strut® (2)----
364MaleLungL29V-strut® (2)VertebroplastyL3VCF L4&L5 (2)
Cement leakage (1)
Vertebroplasty
458MaleLungL49V-strut® (2)--Cement leakage (1)-
554FemaleBreastL410V-strut® (2)VertebroplastyL3VCF L5 (2)
Cement leakage (1)
-
648MaleLungL1&L49SpineJack® (4)VertebroplastyT9 T10 T11 T12--
762MaleLungL39SpineJack® (2)VertebroplastyT2 T3 T4--
840FemaleBreastT87SpineJack® (2)----
973FemaleBreastL110SpineJack® (2)--VCF L2 (3)
Cement leakage (1)
Spinejack® (2)
1056FemaleOvarianT1212SpineJack® (2)VertebroplastyT10 T11 L1--
1179FemaleLungL1&L201SpineJack® (4)----
1223FemaleOsteosarcomaT12&L19SpineJack® (2)VertebroplastyC7 T3 T5Cement leakage (1)-
1389FemaleOvarianT11&L110SpineJack® (2)VertebroplastyT12--
1474FemaleOvarianT12&L110SpineJack® (4)VertebroplastyL2Cement leakage (1)-
1559FemaleBreastT99Kiva® (1)----
1657MaleMyelomaL27Kiva® (1)----
1778MaleLungT127SpineJack® (2)VertebroplastyT3 T4--
1849FemaleBreastT107Spinejack® (2)----
Note—L: lumbar; SINS: spinal instability neoplastic score; T: thoracic; C: cervical; VCF: vertebral compression fracture.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cornelis, F.H.; Razakamanantsoa, L.; Ben Ammar, M.; Najdawi, M.; Gardavaud, F.; El-Mouhadi, S.; Barral, M. Percutaneous Image-Guided Vertebral Fixation in Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Case Series Study. Medicina 2021, 57, 907. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/medicina57090907

AMA Style

Cornelis FH, Razakamanantsoa L, Ben Ammar M, Najdawi M, Gardavaud F, El-Mouhadi S, Barral M. Percutaneous Image-Guided Vertebral Fixation in Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Case Series Study. Medicina. 2021; 57(9):907. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/medicina57090907

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cornelis, Francois H., Leo Razakamanantsoa, Mohamed Ben Ammar, Milan Najdawi, Francois Gardavaud, Sanaa El-Mouhadi, and Matthias Barral. 2021. "Percutaneous Image-Guided Vertebral Fixation in Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Case Series Study" Medicina 57, no. 9: 907. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/medicina57090907

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop