Anne L Versteeg1, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, Arjun Sahgal, Ehud Mendel, Nasir A Quraishi, Daryl R Fourney, Charles G Fisher. 1. *Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands †Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada ‡The Department of Neurosurgery and Orthopedics at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH §The Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK ¶Division of Neurosurgery, University of Saskatchewan and Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, SK, Canada ||Division of Spine, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, and the Combined Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Spine Program at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To address the following questions in a systematic literature review: 1. How is spinal neoplastic instability defined or classified in the literature before and after the introduction of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS)? 2. How has SINS affected daily clinical practice? 3. Can SINS be used as a prognostic tool? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal neoplastic-related instability was defined in 2010 and simultaneously SINS was introduced as a novel tool with criteria agreed upon by expert consensus to assess the degree of spinal stability. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and clinical trial databases were searched with the key words "spinal neoplasm," "spinal instability," "spinal instability neoplastic score," and synonyms. Studies describing spinal neoplastic-related instability were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included studies describing and/or defining neoplastic-related instability, SINS, and studies using SINS as a prognostic factor. RESULTS: The search identified 1414 articles, of which 51 met the inclusion criteria. No precise definition or validated assessment tool was used specific to spinal neoplastic-related instability prior to the introduction of SINS. Since the publication of SINS in 2010, the vast majority of the literature regarding spinal instability has used SINS to assess or describe instability. Twelve studies specifically investigated the prognostic value of SINS in patients who underwent radiotherapy or surgery. CONCLUSION: No consensus could be determined regarding the definition, assessment, or reporting of neoplastic-related instability before introduction of SINS. Defining spinal neoplastic-related instability and the introduction of SINS have led to improved uniform reporting within the spinal neoplastic literature. Currently, the prognostic value of SINS is controversial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To address the following questions in a systematic literature review: 1. How is spinal neoplastic instability defined or classified in the literature before and after the introduction of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS)? 2. How has SINS affected daily clinical practice? 3. Can SINS be used as a prognostic tool? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal neoplastic-related instability was defined in 2010 and simultaneously SINS was introduced as a novel tool with criteria agreed upon by expert consensus to assess the degree of spinal stability. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and clinical trial databases were searched with the key words "spinal neoplasm," "spinal instability," "spinal instability neoplastic score," and synonyms. Studies describing spinal neoplastic-related instability were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included studies describing and/or defining neoplastic-related instability, SINS, and studies using SINS as a prognostic factor. RESULTS: The search identified 1414 articles, of which 51 met the inclusion criteria. No precise definition or validated assessment tool was used specific to spinal neoplastic-related instability prior to the introduction of SINS. Since the publication of SINS in 2010, the vast majority of the literature regarding spinal instability has used SINS to assess or describe instability. Twelve studies specifically investigated the prognostic value of SINS in patients who underwent radiotherapy or surgery. CONCLUSION: No consensus could be determined regarding the definition, assessment, or reporting of neoplastic-related instability before introduction of SINS. Defining spinal neoplastic-related instability and the introduction of SINS have led to improved uniform reporting within the spinal neoplastic literature. Currently, the prognostic value of SINS is controversial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
Authors: Ilya Laufer; Simon S Lo; Eric L Chang; Jason Sheehan; Matthias Guckenberger; Moon-Jun Sohn; Samuel Ryu; Matthew Foote; Alexander Muacevic; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Chao; Sten Myrehaug; Peter C Gerszten; Eric Lis; Pejman Maralani; Mark Bilsky; Charles Fisher; Laurence Rhines; Jorrit-Jan Verlaan; David Schiff; Michael G Fehlings; Lijun Ma; Susan Chang; Wendy R Parulekar; Michael A Vogelbaum; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Ron N Alkalay; Michael W Groff; Marc A Stadelmann; Florian M Buck; Sven Hoppe; Nicolas Theumann; Umesh Mektar; Roger B Davis; David B Hackney Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2021-09-03
Authors: Marc A Stadelmann; Denis E Schenk; Ghislain Maquer; Christopher Lenherr; Florian M Buck; Dieter D Bosshardt; Sven Hoppe; Nicolas Theumann; Ron N Alkalay; Philippe K Zysset Journal: Bone Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 4.626