Home›The Treatise›Chapters›Chapter 91
Tratado de Cirurgia da Coluna Vertebral
SECTION 8 • 8
Chapter91

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Treatment and Adjuvant Therapy in Spine Tumors

Vancouver: Mudo ML, Tatsui CE📖 Pages: 1105-1126
Full reading of this chapter is available exclusively in the printed edition of the Treatise.
Sec. 88
Cap. 91Clinical Chapter
2authors
Português
Español
English
Referênciasscientific citations
📑

Chapter Summary

• Context: The treatment of spinal tumors has evolved from large open resections to multimodal strategies aimed at achieving neural decompression, mechanical stability, and tumor control with reduced surgical aggression. This shift is particularly relevant in oncologic patients who frequently present comorbidities, systemic frailty, and the need for prompt resumption of radiotherapy or systemic therapy. The chapter integrates various minimally invasive techniques: endoscopic surgery, vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, percutaneous tumor ablation, laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), separation surgery, and percutaneous instrumentation. These modalities are presented as complementary tools targeting distinct problems—neural compression, instability, pain, and local control. The primary challenge lies in selecting and sequencing interventions appropriately, avoiding both excessively aggressive procedures and insufficient treatments for existing neurological, oncologic, or mechanical compromise.
• Chapter Objective: To present the main minimally invasive techniques and their integration with adjuvant therapies in spinal tumor treatment. The reader will understand principles, indications, and limitations, correlate neural compression, instability, and oncologic control with therapeutic selection, and recognize how endoscopy, vertebral augmentation, ablation, SBRT, separation surgery, and percutaneous stabilization can be combined into individualized strategies.
• Reduced Invasiveness in Oncologic StrategyMinimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) techniques aim to reduce muscle damage, blood loss, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. In oncologic patients, this reduced morbidity facilitates early mobilization and rapid resumption of adjuvant systemic therapies and radiation. Decision-making remains governed by neurological, mechanical, and oncologic treatment objectives.
• Endoscopy: Selective ApplicationUniportal and biportal modalities are discussed. In spine oncology, both permit biopsy, targeted decompression, and resection of selected epidural lesions with minimal tissue disruption. Intradural tumor application remains restricted and highly operator-dependent, with its prime utility being limited decompression enabling rapid recovery.
• Vertebral Augmentation and Percutaneous AblationVertebroplasty and kyphoplasty reinforce vertebral bodies weakened by pathological fractures, providing mechanical stabilization and prompt pain relief. Percutaneous ablation adds local tumor control and analgesia. The chapter reviews radiofrequency, microwave, cryoablation, and laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT), as well as combination ablation-cementoplasty procedures.
• Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Separation SurgeryStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivers ablative radiation doses to defined tumor volumes while sparing the adjacent spinal cord. Separation surgery redefines the classic paradigm of radical resection: instead of complete epidural tumor removal, it aims to decompress neural elements (creating a 2-3 mm safe margin) so that SBRT can effectively treat the residual tumor.
• Percutaneous Instrumentation and StabilityPercutaneous pedicle screw stabilization is indicated when neoplastic destruction produces mechanical instability or pain. The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) standardizes clinical and radiographic assessment of spinal stability. Percutaneous instrumentation is readily combined with separation surgery, vertebroplasty, or radiation.
• Clinical Application: Treatment selection begins with identifying the dominant problem: fracture pain without neural compression suggests vertebral augmentation; mechanical instability indicates stabilization using SINS criteria; and symptomatic epidural cord compression places neural decompression at the center. Separation surgery allows targeted decompression followed by SBRT for local oncologic control, avoiding massive open resection. Percutaneous pedicle screws provide rigid stabilization with minimal blood loss and low infection risk, enabling prompt postoperative radiotherapy.
🏷️

Keywords

Preferred DeCS/MeSH Descriptors:
Spinal NeoplasmsMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoplasm MetastasisSpinal Cord CompressionVertebroplastyKyphoplastyRadiosurgery
⭐

Why this chapter matters

Spinal tumor patients rarely need only tumor removal; they frequently require neural decompression, pain relief, spinal stabilization, and local radiation control simultaneously. This chapter demonstrates how endoscopy, ablation, cementation, SBRT, separation surgery, and percutaneous instrumentation integrate into a comprehensive care strategy that minimizes surgical burden and preserves precious time for systemic cancer care.

“Minimally invasive techniques expand spinal tumor management by distributing decompression, stabilization, analgesia, and tumor control across complementary procedures. Benefit stems from reducing morbidity and accelerating transition to systemic and radiation therapy within an individualized multimodal framework.”
✨

Chapter Highlights

🌐
Card 1 — Essential Concept
Less Invasive, Same Objective

A minimally invasive technique is appropriate only when it achieves necessary therapeutic goals. Preserving muscle tissue does not replace adequate decompression, mechanical stability, or tumor control. Start from the clinical problem and determine the least invasive corridor to solve it.

🩺
Card 2 — Clinical Decision
Separate Surgery from Radiation

Separation surgery demonstrates that maximal open resection is not always necessary. When stereotactic radiosurgery can ablate residual tumor, surgery focuses strictly on freeing the neural elements and restoring mechanical stability.

📐
Card 3 — Pearl or Alert
Recognize Mechanical Instability

Mechanical pain in metastatic spine disease indicates structural instability rather than simple tumor pain. Using the SINS classification helps identify patients who require percutaneous or open stabilization alongside decompression and radiation.

📑

How to Cite this Chapter (Vancouver Format)

Official bibliographic indexing and citation guidelines
📖 Pages: 1105-1126Vancouver Style
Authors (Vancouver):Mudo ML, Tatsui CE

Mudo ML, Tatsui CE. Técnicas minimamente invasivas para tratamento e adjuvância nos tumores da coluna vertebral. In: Pudles E, Defino H, Risso M, editors. Tratado de Cirurgia da Coluna Vertebral (Treatise of Spine Surgery). 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Dilivros Editora; 2026. p. 1105-1126.

ISBN: 978-85-8053-292-0 • 1.ª Edição • Dilivros Editora
📚

Bibliographic References

1. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio SJ, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):643-8.
2. Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR, Groff M, Schmidt MH, Varga PP, et al. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(3):324-8.
3. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(15 Suppl):S26-35.
4. Sciubba DM, Petteys RJ, Dekutoski MB, Fisher CG, Fehlings MG, Ondra SL, et al. Diagnosis and management of metastatic spine disease. A review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(1):94-108.
5. Laufer I, Iorgulescu JB, Chapman T, Lis E, Shi W, Zhang Z, et al. Local disease control for spinal metastases following “separation surgery” and adjuvant hypofractionated or high-dose single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: outcome analysis in 186 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(3):207-14.
6. Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Burch S. Shifting paradigms in the treatment of metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(22 Suppl):S101-7.
7. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, Cox BW, Stubblefield MD, Yamada Y, et al. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist. 2013;18(6):744-51.
8. Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, Le Gars D. Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie. 1987;33(2):166-8.
9. Dupuy DE, Liu D, Hartfeil D, Hanna L, Blume JD, Ahrar K, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of painful osseous metastases: a multicenter American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial. Cancer. 2010;116(4):989-97.
10. Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(1 Suppl):7-12.
11. Laufer I, Bilsky MH. Advances in the treatment of metastatic spine tumors: the future is not what it used to be. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(3):299-307.
12. Garfin SR, Yuan HA, Reiley MA. New technologies in spine: kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(14):1511-5.
13. Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, Goetz MP, Rubin J, Wong GY, Sloan JA, et al. Painful metastases involving bone: feasibility of percutaneous CT- and MR imaging-guided radio-frequency ablation. Radiology. 2002;224(1):87-97.
14. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Welch WC. Radiosurgery for spinal metastases: clinical experience in 500 cases from a single institution. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(2):193-9.
15. Ryu S, Pugh SL, Gerszten PC, Yin FF, Timmerman RD, Hitchcock YJ, et al. RTOG 0631 phase 2/3 study of image guided stereotactic radiosurgery for localized (1-3) spine metastases: phase 2 results. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4(2):76-81.
16. Tatsui CE, Lee SH, Amini B, Rao G, Suki D, Oro M, et al. Spinal laser interstitial thermal therapy: a novel alternative to surgery for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(Suppl 1):S73-S82.
17. Bastos DCA, Vega RA, Traylor JI, Ghia AJ, Li J, Oro M, et al. Spinal laser interstitial thermal therapy: single-center experience and outcomes in the first 120 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;34(3):354-63.
18. 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(22):E1221-9.
19. Spratt DE, Beeler WH, de Moraes FY, et al. An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: an International Spine Oncology Consortium report. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):e720-e730.
20. Amankulor NM, Xu R, Iorgulescu JB, Chapman T, Reiner AS, Riedel E, et al. The incidence and patterns of hardware failure after separation surgery in patients with spinal metastatic tumors. Spine J. 2014;14(9):1850-9.
Episode 06 – Early-Onset Scoliosis
Scheduled Premiere
Exclusive Premiere • Wednesday, October 07 at 9:00 PM (BRT)
Wednesday, October 07 at 9:00 PM (BRT)
The live countdown will be activated on the eve of the premiere.

The full videocast will premiere automatically in this player on Wednesday, 10/07 at 6:00 PM (BRT).

Also premiering on Spotify
Treatise in Debate

Official videocast derived from the treatise chapters.

Episode 06 – Early-Onset Scoliosis

Lungs and the Growing Spine: thoracic development, C-EOS classification, and growth-friendly surgical techniques