Ilya Laufer1, Scott L Zuckerman2, Justin E Bird3, Mark H Bilsky1, Áron Lazáry4, Nasir A Quraishi5, Michael G Fehlings6, Daniel M Sciubba7, John H Shin8, Addisu Mesfin9, Arjun Sahgal10, Charles G Fisher11. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Oncology, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. National Center for Spinal Disorders, Budapest, Hungary. 5. Centre for Spinal Studies & Surgery, Nottingham University Hospital, Queens Medical Center Campus, Nottingham, UK. 6. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto and Toronto, Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Neurological Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 8. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 9. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 11. Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine, University of British Columbia and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and expert survey OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine factors associated with neurologic improvement in patients with neurologic deficits secondary to metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC). Clear understanding of these factors will guide surgical decision-making by helping to elucidate which patients are more likely to benefit from surgery and how surgeons can increase the probability of neurologic and functional restoration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical spinal cord decompression has been shown to improve neurologic function in patients with symptomatic MESCC. However, prognostication of neurologic improvement after surgery remains challenging, owing to sparse data and complexity of these patients. METHODS: PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications. PRISMA Statement guided publication selection and data reporting. GRADE guidelines were used for evidence quality evaluation and recommendation formulation. RESULTS: Low-quality evidence supports the use of the duration and severity of neurologic deficit as predictors of neurological recovery in patients with MESCC. Low-quality evidence supports the use of thoracic level of compression and previous irradiation as adverse predictors of neurological recovery. Nearly all of the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor members who responded to the survey agreed that ambulation with assistance represented a successful surgical result and that duration of ambulation loss and the severity of weakness should be considered when trying to predict whether surgery would result in restoration of ambulation. CONCLUSIONS: Review of literature and expert opinion support the importance of duration of ambulation loss and the severity of neurologic deficit (muscle strength, bladder function) in prediction of neurologic recovery among patients with symptomatic MESCC. Efforts to reduce the duration of ambulation loss and to prevent progression of neurologic deficits should be made to improve the probability of neurologic recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and expert survey OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine factors associated with neurologic improvement in patients with neurologic deficits secondary to metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC). Clear understanding of these factors will guide surgical decision-making by helping to elucidate which patients are more likely to benefit from surgery and how surgeons can increase the probability of neurologic and functional restoration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical spinal cord decompression has been shown to improve neurologic function in patients with symptomatic MESCC. However, prognostication of neurologic improvement after surgery remains challenging, owing to sparse data and complexity of these patients. METHODS: PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications. PRISMA Statement guided publication selection and data reporting. GRADE guidelines were used for evidence quality evaluation and recommendation formulation. RESULTS: Low-quality evidence supports the use of the duration and severity of neurologic deficit as predictors of neurological recovery in patients with MESCC. Low-quality evidence supports the use of thoracic level of compression and previous irradiation as adverse predictors of neurological recovery. Nearly all of the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor members who responded to the survey agreed that ambulation with assistance represented a successful surgical result and that duration of ambulation loss and the severity of weakness should be considered when trying to predict whether surgery would result in restoration of ambulation. CONCLUSIONS: Review of literature and expert opinion support the importance of duration of ambulation loss and the severity of neurologic deficit (muscle strength, bladder function) in prediction of neurologic recovery among patients with symptomatic MESCC. Efforts to reduce the duration of ambulation loss and to prevent progression of neurologic deficits should be made to improve the probability of neurologic recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Authors: David Choi; Zoe Fox; Todd Albert; Mark Arts; Laurent Balabaud; Cody Bunger; Jacob Maciej Buchowski; Maarten Hubert Coppes; Bart Depreitere; Michael George Fehlings; James Harrop; Norio Kawahara; Juan Anthonio Martin-Benlloch; Eric Maurice Massicotte; Christian Mazel; Fetullah Cumhur Oner; Wilco Peul; Nasir Quraishi; Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Katsuro Tomita; Jorit Jan Verlaan; Miao Wang; Michael Wang; Hugh Alan Crockard Journal: Br J Neurosurg Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 1.596
Authors: Alexis Falicov; Charles G Fisher; Joe Sparkes; Michael C Boyd; Peter C Wing; Marcel F Dvorak Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christian Hessler; Till Burkhardt; Frank Raimund; Jan Regelsberger; Eik Vettorazzi; Juergen Madert; Christoph Eggers Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Kaisorn L Chaichana; Courtney Pendleton; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Daniel M Sciubba Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Ignacio Neumann; Nancy Santesso; Elie A Akl; David M Rind; Per Olav Vandvik; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Thomas Agoritsas; Reem A Mustafa; Paul Elias Alexander; Holger Schünemann; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kaisorn L Chaichana; Graeme F Woodworth; Daniel M Sciubba; Matthew J McGirt; Timothy J Witham; Ali Bydon; Jean Paul Wolinsky; Ziya Gokaslan Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Ilya Laufer; Adam Robin; Ran Xu; Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Lily McLaughlin; Mary-Kate Amato; Anne S Reiner; Shahiba Q Ogilvie; Eric Lis; Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; Ilya Laufer Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Stefano Boriani; Charles G Fisher; Arjun Sahgal; Jorrit Jan Verlaan; Ziya L Gokaslan; Aron Lazary; Chetan Bettegowda; Laurence D Rhines; Ilya Laufer Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-05-08
Authors: Anne L Versteeg; Lior M Elkaim; Arjun Sahgal; Laurence D Rhines; Daniel M Sciubba; James M Schuster; Michael G Fehlings; Aron Lazary; Michelle J Clarke; Paul M Arnold; Chetan Bettegowda; Stefano Boriani; Ziya L Gokaslan; Charles G Fisher; Michael H Weber Journal: Neurospine Date: 2022-01-30
Authors: Mai Anh Huynh; Claudia Roldan; Paula Nunes; Andrea Kelly; Allison Taylor; Cara Richards; M Mohsin Fareed; Daniel Gorman; Michael Groff; Marco Ferrone; Yi Lu; John H Chi; Alexander Spektor; Tracy Balboni Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2020-07-31