Zaborovskii Nikita, Ptashnikov Dmitrii, Mikaylov Dmitrii, Masevnin Sergei, Smekalenkov Oleg
Spine Surgery and Oncology Service, R.R. Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, St. A. Baykova, 8, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 195427.
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Aug;28(6):1047-1052. doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2162-6. Epub 2018 Mar 10.
Intraoperative hemorrhage can sometimes be massive in patients with spinal metastasis of renal cell carcinoma (MRCC). Preoperative embolization and local hemostatic agents are routinely use in spinal tumor surgery, but there have been no comparisons between these methods. This report compares the efficiency of various methods of bleeding control and their influence on outcome and survival after decompression procedures for MRCC.
This was a retrospective case-control study of 54 patients with hypervascular extraosseous MRCC. All patients underwent palliative decompression procedures. We compared two groups of patients stratified by methods of bleeding control. The first group (EMB) included 32 patients who underwent preoperative embolization of a tumor. The second group (HEM) consisted of 22 patients, treated surgically using intraoperative local hemostatic agents. The parameters under evaluation were blood loss volume, drainage loss, possible complications, time of hospital stay and survival.
The median intraoperative blood loss for EMB group [1275 (95% CI 1175-1500) mL] was slightly less than the median in HEM group [1400 (95% CI 1050-1725) mL] without significant differences (p = 0.681). The postoperative drainage loss in HEM group [250 (95% CI 140-325) mL] was significantly less than that in EMB group [500 (95% CI 425-550) mL] (p = 0.013). The complication rate (infections, hematomas, neurological deficit) was nearly equal in all groups. No statistically significant difference in overall survival was found between groups: EMB-26 months (1 year-93.3%, 3 years-26.7%) and HEM-24 months (1 year-95.2%, 3 years-16.3%) (p = 0.360).
Our results suggest that not all patients with MRCC require preoperative embolization, because usage of modern hemostatic agents can be an alternative bleeding control method.
肾细胞癌脊柱转移(MRCC)患者术中出血有时可能很严重。术前栓塞和局部止血剂在脊柱肿瘤手术中常规使用,但这些方法之间尚未进行比较。本报告比较了MRCC减压手术后各种出血控制方法的效率及其对预后和生存的影响。
这是一项对54例富血管性骨外MRCC患者进行的回顾性病例对照研究。所有患者均接受了姑息性减压手术。我们比较了根据出血控制方法分层的两组患者。第一组(EMB)包括32例接受肿瘤术前栓塞的患者。第二组(HEM)由22例患者组成,他们在手术中使用术中局部止血剂进行治疗。评估的参数包括失血量、引流量、可能的并发症、住院时间和生存率。
EMB组术中失血量中位数为[1275(95%CI 1175 - 1500)mL],略低于HEM组的中位数[1400(95%CI 1050 - 1725)mL],但无显著差异(p = 0.681)。HEM组术后引流量为[250(95%CI 140 - 325)mL],明显少于EMB组的[500(95%CI 425 - 550)mL](p = 0.013)。所有组的并发症发生率(感染、血肿、神经功能缺损)几乎相等。两组之间的总生存率无统计学显著差异:EMB组为26个月(1年 - 93.3%,3年 - 26.7%),HEM组为24个月(1年 - 95.2%,3年 - 16.3%)(p = 0.360)。
我们的结果表明,并非所有MRCC患者都需要术前栓塞,因为使用现代止血剂可以作为一种替代的出血控制方法。