medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-7749 (Electronic)
ISSN 2992-7897 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de difusión científica de la Asociación Mexicana de Cirujanos de Columna A. C.

2025, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Cir Columna 2025; 3 (4)

Metastatic spinal disease. Literature review and case report

Villalvazo BA, Hinojosa MLM, Ruíz RCO, Calderón VJR

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 305-310
PDF size: 319.33 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: metastatic spinal disease is considered the most frequently found site of involvement compared to other segments of the musculoskeletal system. In most cases, it affects population groups between 40 and 65 years of age, which corresponds to the longest period of cancer diagnosis. In clinical diagnosis, pain will be the most common presenting symptom in approximately 83-95% of cases. Clinical case: we present the clinical case of a 61-year-old female patient, who presents with long-term low back pain refractory to conservative treatment and the presence of exacerbation of symptoms accompanied by neurological deficit. She was evaluated in our unit where a diagnosis of vertebral destruction syndrome secondary to a metastatic process at the L5 level was made, with the consequent need for definitive surgical treatment. Discussion: the spine surgeon should make use of the tools available today, as part of structured thinking, the correct identification of the underlying etiological process should be taken into account, paying special emphasis to clinical data and radiological findings, achieving a correct classification of the pathology to be treated, which will guide us to better decision-making. Conclusion: in our clinical case, due to the increase in symptoms and the degree of vertebral destruction, we decided to manage it consisting of surgical treatment, achieving adequate stability and allowing the obtaining of tissue from the lesion with the corresponding shipment to the pathology service, which allowed us to locate the primary tumor and resolve it in the same hospitalization. With the subsequent reinstatement of the patient to her basic activities of daily living.


REFERENCES

  1. Perrin RG, Laxton AW. Metastatic spine disease: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and evaluation of patients. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2004; 15: 365-373. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2004.04.018

  2. Wallace AN, Robinson CG, Meyer J, Tran ND, Gangi A, Callstrom MR, et al. The metastatic spine disease multidisciplinary working group algorithms. Oncologist [Internet]. 2015; 20: 1205-1215. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0085

  3. Janka M, Füssel S, Unterpaintner I, Schuh A. Wirbelsäulenmetastasen: wie sie diagnostiziert und therapiert werden können. MMW Fortschr Med. 2016; 158: 50-54. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15006-016-8063-x

  4. Cano GJC, Mantic LM, Vela PT, García GGL. Epidemiología y clínica de las metástasis vertebrales. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2023; 67: 500-504. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2023.04.009

  5. Sciubba DM, Gokaslan ZL. Diagnosis and management of metastatic spine disease. Surg Oncol. 2006; 15: 141-151. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2006.11.002

  6. Kaloostian PE, Yurter A, Zadnik PL, Sciubba DM, Gokaslan ZL. Current paradigms for metastatic spinal disease: an evidence-based review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21: 248-262. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3324-8

  7. Khan SN, Donthineni R. Surgical management of metastatic spine tumors. Orthop Clin North Am. 2006; 37: 99-104. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2005.09.002

  8. Witt D, Jaque I, Sepúlveda MI. Enfermedad metastásica de la columna vertebral. Rev Médica Clín Las Condes. 2020; 31: 460-471. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2020.11.003

  9. Tokuhashi Y, Uei H, Oshima M. Classification and scoring systems for metastatic spine tumors: a literature review. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017; 1: 44-55. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.1.2016-0021

  10. Zoccali C, Skoch J, Walter CM, Torabi M, Borgstrom M, Baaj AA. The Tokuhashi score: effectiveness and pitfalls. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25: 673-678. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4339-6

  11. Houston R, Desai S, Takayanagi A, Quynh Thu Tran C, Mortezaei A, Oladaskari A, et al. A multidisciplinary update on treatment modalities for metastatic spinal tumors with a surgical emphasis: a literature review and evaluation of the role of artificial intelligence. Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16: 2800. Available in: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162800

  12. D'Aquino D, Tarawneh AM, Hilis A, Palliyil N, Deogaonkar K, Quraishi NA. Surgical approaches to L5 corpectomy: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2020; 29: 3074-3079. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06617-y

  13. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, et al. A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: an evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35: E1221-1229.

  14. Zuckerman SL, Laufer I, Sahgal A, Yamada YJ, Schmidt MH, Chou D, et al. When less is more: the indications for mis techniques and separation surgery in metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41 Suppl 20(Suppl 20): S246-S253. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001824

  15. Vazan M, Ryang YM, Gerhardt J, Zibold F, Janssen I, Ringel F, et al. L5 corpectomy-the lumbosacral segmental geometry and clinical outcome-a consecutive series of 14 patients and review of the literature. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017; 159: 1147-1152. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3084-5.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com