Introduction:
Pelvic metastasis is a common presentation among patients presenting with skeletal metastasis. Image-guided percutaneous cementation of these lesions is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of these lesions. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review that investigates clinical outcomes after percutaneous cementation for pelvic metastasis.
Methods:
A systematic review was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I to IV clinical studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes after percutaneous cementation for pelvic metastasis were included.
Results:
Fourteen studies with 579 patients (278 men, 301 women) and 631 metastatic pelvic lesions were included in the study. The mean follow-up range was 0.7 to 26.4 months. Percutaneous cementation alone was performed in 441 patients (76.2%). Supplemental ablative procedures were performed in 77 patients (13.3%), and supplemental internal fixation using cannulated screws was performed in 107 patients (18.5%). Twelve studies with 430 patients (74.2%) reported pain-related and/or functional outcome scores, of which all studies reported overall clinically notable improvement at short-term follow-up. All studies reported periprocedural complications. Local cement leakage was the most common complication (162/631 lesions, 25.7%) followed by transient local pain (25/579 patients, 4.3%). There were no reported cases of major complications. Seven patients (1.2%) underwent re-intervention for persistent symptoms.
Conclusions:
Percutaneous cementation may be an effective method for treating pain and function related to pelvic metastasis. The most common complication was cement leakage surrounding the lesion. The rates of major complications were low, and most complications appeared minor and transient. Additional prospective studies are needed to further assess the efficacy of this procedure.
Level of evidence:
IV, systematic review of level I to IV therapeutic studies.