Preoperative embolization in surgical treatment of spinal metastases originating from non–hypervascular primary tumors: a propensity score matched study using 495 patients

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPreoperative embolization (PE) reduces intraoperative blood loss during surgery for spinal metastases of hypervascular primary tumors such as thyroid and renal cell tumors. However, most spinal metastases originate from primary breast, prostate, and lung tumors and it remains unclear whether these and other spinal metastases benefit from PE. PURPOSETo assess the (1) efficacy of PE on the amount of intraoperative blood loss and safety in patients with spinal metastases originating from non–hypervascular primary tumors, and (2) secondary outcomes including perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion, anesthesia time, hospitalization, postoperative complication within 30 days, reoperation, 90-day mortality, and 1-year mortality. STUDY DESIGNRetrospective propensity-score matched, case-control study at 2 academic tertiary medical centers. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients 18 years of age or older undergoing surgery for spinal metastases originating from primary non–thyroid, non–renal cell, and non–hepatocellular tumors between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2016 were included. OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcomes were estimated amount of intraoperative blood loss and complications attributable to PE, such as neurologic injury, wound infection, thrombosis, or dissection. The secondary outcomes included perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion, anesthesia time, hospitalization, postoperative complication within 30 days, reoperation, 90-day mortality, and 1-year mortality. METHODSIn total, 495 patients were identified, of which 54 (11%) underwent PE. After propensity score matching on 21 variables, including primary tumor, number of spinal levels, and surgical treatment, 53 non–PE patients were matched to 53 PE patients. Matching was adequate measured by comparing the matched variables, testing the standardized mean differences (<0.25), and inspecting Kernel density plots. The degree of embolization was noted to be complete, until stasis, or successful in 43 (80%) patients. RESULTSIntraoperative blood loss did not differ between both groups with a median blood loss in liters of 0.6 (IQR, 0.4–1.2) for non–PE patients and 0.9 (IQR, 0.6–1.2) for PE patients (p=.32). No complications occurred during embolization or the time between embolization and surgery. No differences were found in terms of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONSOur data suggest that, although no complications occurred and the embolization procedure can be considered safe, patients with non–hypervascular spinal metastases might not benefit from PE. A larger, prospective study could confirm or refute these study findings and aid in elucidating a subset of spinal metastases that might benefit from PE.