The use of vertebral augmentation and external beam radiation therapy in the multimodal management of malignant vertebral compression fractures

Document Type

Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vertebral augmentation (VA) techniques such as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are increasingly performed minimally invasive procedures for osteoporotic or malignant compression fractures (MCFs) and involve injection of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement directly into a compressed vertebral body. OBJECTIVE: This article will evaluate the efficacy of VA in relieving fracture-related pain. We also intend to identify procedural and clinical variables that could potentially influence outcomes in this population. In the subset of patients with cancer who received both external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and VA, we will assess the impact of the treatment sequence on pain outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis of 201 cases of patients with cancer and MCFs who underwent one or more vertebral augmentation procedures at our institution between 2003 and 2009. The majority of cancers represented were multiple myeloma, metastatic lung cancer, and metastatic breast cancer. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and a 4-point pain scale. SETTING: We present an institutional experience at an academic medical center of 201 cases of MCFs. METHODS: We compiled an institutional database of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty cases using paper and electronic medical records. Our data collection methodology has been previously reported and includes variables such as procedure dates, gender, age, type of malignancy, fracture etiology, history of cancer treatment, type of procedure performed, vertebral level treated, the number of levels treated per procedure, complications, and follow-up information on pain response. The updated dataset incorporates new variables including information on pain medications and standardized questionnaires such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). RESULTS: In the 201 cases of MCFs, a total of 316 vertebral levels were treated with either vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Follow-up data on pain relief was available for 190 out of 201 cases (95%). Among this subgroup, 168 cases (88%) with MCFs responded. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the time patients experienced complete pain resolution. In only 4% of cases did patients report worsening of their fracture-related pain post-procedure. There was no difference in pain outcomes with regard to sequencing of EBRT and VA. LIMITATIONS: One of the limitations of our analysis is that it did not evaluate the effect of pain improvement or resolution before and after EBRT alone and on activities of daily living in the majority of patients. However, one of the main goals of this analysis is to address previous limitations. We attempt to standardize outcome measures by using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). CONCLUSION: A multimodality approach for the management of MCFs includes VA procedures. The majority of patients with MCFs have excellent palliation with this approach. In patients who receive both EBRT and VA, the sequence in which they are given does not affect pain improvement outcomes.

Medical Subject Headings

Bone Cements (therapeutic use); Disability Evaluation; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Fractures, Compression (complications, etiology, radiotherapy, surgery); Humans; Logistic Models; Male; Observation; Pain Measurement; Polymethyl Methacrylate (therapeutic use); Radiotherapy, Computer-Assisted (methods); Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fractures (complications, etiology, radiotherapy, surgery); Surveys and Questionnaires; Vertebroplasty (methods); Veterans

Publication Date

1-1-2011

Publication Title

Pain physician

E-ISSN

2150-1149

Volume

14

Issue

5

First Page

447

Last Page

58

PubMed ID

21927049

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS