Comparing the efficacy and safety of cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screws and conventional pedicle screw in surgery for spinal metastases: a retrospective comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer patients with bone metastasis is increasing annually. With the advancement of medical treatment for malignant tumors, the survival time of patients with spinal metastases is gradually being prolonged, and adjacent segment vertebral metastases often occur after conventional pedicle screw (CPS) surgery, leading to spinal instability, pain and nerve function injury again, with repeated symptoms. Combined pedicle screw fixation can maintain or reconstruct the spinal stability. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screws in the posterior approach for spinal metastases by comparing with CPS. METHODS: From January 2017 to August 2019, 52 patients with spinal metastases who underwent separation surgery and internal fixation via posterior approach were retrospectively enrolled. Cases were divided into the cement-augmented pedicle screw (CAPS) group (28 cases) and the CPS group (24 cases). The baseline data [age, gender, surgical sites, surgical segment, Tomita classification, Tomita score, Tokuhashi score, spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS)], surgical information, and local progression-free survival (PFS) time were compared between the two groups. Every patient was followed-up every 3 months with imaging examination. The visual analog scale (VAS) score and Frankel grade of the two groups were recorded before and 3 months after the operation were used to evaluate the efficacy. The operation time, the amount of intraoperative blood loss, the amount of bone cement injected in the pedicle screw group, and the complications of the surgery were recorded to evaluate the safety of CAPS. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two group. Compared with the CPS group, the CAPS group showed significantly longer operation time (163±20 vs. 138±18 min, P<0.001) and lower VAS scores (2.93±1.33 vs. 4.17±1.34, P=0.002). Adjacent segment vertebral metastasis occurred in 10 cases (2 in the CAPS group and 8 in the CPS group, P=0.017). Internal implant failure occurred in 8 cases (1 in the CAPS group and 7 in the CPS group, P=0.011). Compared with the CPS group, the CAPS group had a significantly longer local PFS time (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CAPS could be a safe and effective choice in surgery for spinal metastases with the posterior approach.