Literature DB >> 25817737

The surgical management of metastatic spinal tumors based on an Epidural Spinal Cord Compression (ESCC) scale.

Nasir A Quraishi1, George Arealis2, Khalid M I Salem2, Sanjay Purushothamdas2, Kimberly L Edwards3, Bronek M Boszczyk2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There have been no previous studies looking at the outcome of surgical decompression (+/-stabilization) for various grades of epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) due to spinal metastases.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of surgical treatment in patients with ESCC using the Bilsky six-point scale. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: This was a retrospective cohort review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A consecutive series of 101 patients managed over the period of 3 years for ESCC due to spinal metastases in a tertiary spine surgery referral unit were included.
METHODS: Data on age, gender, revised Tokuhashi score, preoperative Frankel grade, tumor histology, magnetic resonance imaging scan-based Bilsky cord compression grade, postoperative Frankel grade at last follow-up, complications, and survivorship were collected. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frankel grading system for function was used to evaluate the patient's preoperative and postoperative neurologic status. Patient survival and postoperative complications were also collected.
RESULTS: Average patient age was 64.7 years (13-88 years): 62 males and 39 females. Mean follow-up was 7.3 months (3-23.3 months). Most primary tumors were in prostate, breast, renal, lung, and the blood dyscrasias. Within the lower grade of compression (Group 1; Bilsky Grades 0,1a, 1b, and 1c; n=40), 29 patients (72.5%) had no improvement in Frankel grade, seven patients (17.5%) improved, whereas four patients (10%) deteriorated neurologically after surgery. Within the higher compression grade (Group 2; Bilsky Grades 2 and 3; n=61), 37 patients (60%) did not experience neurologic change, 20 (33%) improved, whereas neurology worsened in four patients (7%). When compared with Group 2 patients, Group 1 patients had better preoperative Frankel scores but a greater number of patients in Group 2 improved their Frankel scores significantly postoperatively. The mean revised Tokuhashi score for Groups 1 and 2 was 10 and 9.1, respectively (p=.1). The complication rate for Groups 1 and 2 was 25% and 42.6%, respectively (p=.052). Survival analysis showed no difference between the groups (Group 1: median 376 days [12-1052]; Group 2: median 326 days [12-979]; p=.62).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgery can achieve improvements in neurology even in higher grades of cord compression. There is a trend toward more complications and worse survival with spinal surgery in patients with higher grades of compression.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bilsky; Epidural; Epidural Spinal Cord Compression scale; Grades; Spinal Mestases; Spinal cord compression

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25817737     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  16 in total

1.  Reducing kyphotic deformity by posterior vertebral column resection with 360° osteosynthesis in metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC).

Authors:  Marc Dreimann; Michael Hoffmann; Lennart Viezens; Lukas Weiser; Patrick Czorlich; Sven Oliver Eicker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Image-guidance technology and the surgical resection of spinal column tumors.

Authors:  Bhargav Desai; Jonathan Hobbs; Grant Hartung; Guoren Xu; Ziya L Gokaslan; Andreas Linninger; Ankit I Mehta
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 3.  Surgical complications of extraspinal tumors in the cervical spine: a report of 110 cases and literature review.

Authors:  WenHua Yang; Liang Jiang; XiaoGuang Liu; Feng Wei; Miao Yu; FengLiang Wu; Lei Dang; Hua Zhou; Hua Zhang; ZhongJun Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The next generation in surgical research for patients with spinal metastases.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Marco L Ferrone
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Frequency of Complicated Symptomatic Bone Metastasis Over a Breadth of Operational Definitions.

Authors:  Sara R Alcorn; Christen R Elledge; Jean L Wright; Thomas J Smith; Todd R McNutt; Jacob Fiksel; Scott L Zeger; Theodore L DeWeese
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 6.  Diagnosis and treatment of epidural metastases.

Authors:  S A Grossman; D Lossignol
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 2.990

7.  Predictive factors, preventive implications, and personalized surgical strategies for bone metastasis from lung cancer: population-based approach with a comprehensive cancer center-based study.

Authors:  Xianglin Hu; Wending Huang; Zhengwang Sun; Hui Ye; Kwong Man; Qifeng Wang; Yangbai Sun; Wangjun Yan
Journal:  EPMA J       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 6.543

8.  Posterior decompression and occipitocervical fixation followed by intraoperative vertebroplasty for metastatic involvement of the axis.

Authors:  Xinjie Wu; Mingsheng Tan; Yingna Qi; Ping Yi; Feng Yang; Xiangsheng Tang; Qingying Hao
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Clinical Results of Minimally Invasive Spine Stabilization for the Management of Metastatic Spinal Tumors Based on the Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Scale.

Authors:  Hiroshi Uei; Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Masafumi Maseda; Masahiro Nakahashi; Hirokatsu Sawada; Koji Matsumoto; Hiroyuki Miyakata; Hirotoki Soma
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Analysis of the Relationship Between the Epidural Spinal Cord Compression (ESCC) Scale and Paralysis Caused by Metastatic Spine Tumors.

Authors:  Hiroshi Uei; Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Masafumi Maseda
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 3.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.