There is currently no consensus about the mean volume of blood lost during spinal tumour surgery and surgery for metastatic spinal disease. We conducted a systematic review of papers published in the English language between 31 January 1992 and 31 January 2012. Only papers that clearly presented blood loss data in spinal surgery for metastatic disease were included. The random effects model was used to obtain the pooled estimate of mean blood loss.

We selected 18 papers, including six case series, ten retrospective reviews and two prospective studies. Altogether, there were 760 patients who had undergone spinal tumour surgery and surgery for metastatic spinal disease. The pooled estimate of peri-operative blood loss was 2180 ml (95% confidence interval 1805 to 2554) with catastrophic blood loss as high as 5000 ml, which is rare. Aside from two studies that reported large amounts of mean blood loss (> 5500 ml), the resulting funnel plot suggested an absence of publication bias. This was confirmed by Egger’s test, which did not show any small-study effects (p = 0.119). However, there was strong evidence of heterogeneity between studies (I² = 90%; p < 0.001).

Spinal surgery for metastatic disease is associated with significant blood loss and the possibility of catastrophic blood loss. There is a need to establish standardised methods of calculating and reporting this blood loss. Analysis should include assessment by area of the spine, primary pathology and nature of surgery so that the amount of blood loss can be predicted. Consideration should be given to autotransfusion in these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:683–8.

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52).

The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes.

Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.