En Bloc Resection of Tumors of the Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Complications.
complications
en bloc
lumbar
malignant
outcome
primary en bloc resection
spine
spondylectomy
thoracolumbar
tumor
Journal
International journal of spine surgery
ISSN: 2211-4599
Titre abrégé: Int J Spine Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101579005
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
entrez:
28
1
2022
pubmed:
29
1
2022
medline:
29
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The literature on total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of bone tumors of the lumbar spine is sparse and heterogeneous. Therefore, the aim was to systematically pool the data from the published studies to quantitatively summarize the morbidity and mortality and to identify factors associated with favorable outcomes and complications. A systematic literature search for studies with individual patient-level data was conducted using specific medical subject heading(MeSH) terms. The outcome measures assessed included complications, tumor recurrence, survival, and function. Individual patient data were pooled from all the studies and quantitatively analyzed to assess the association of different factors with outcomes and complications. Twelve studies were included in this review with a total of 145 TES cases. Of all patients, 50% had at least 1 reported complication post surgery and this was associated with advancing age (OR 1.04, TES is associated with high rates of complications especially in association with primary malignant and metastatic diseases. However, the number of publications on this topic remain scarce and heterogeneous. Hence, there is a need for standardization in the reporting of the outcomes and complications to help with decision-making and consenting for this procedure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The literature on total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of bone tumors of the lumbar spine is sparse and heterogeneous. Therefore, the aim was to systematically pool the data from the published studies to quantitatively summarize the morbidity and mortality and to identify factors associated with favorable outcomes and complications.
METHOD
METHODS
A systematic literature search for studies with individual patient-level data was conducted using specific medical subject heading(MeSH) terms. The outcome measures assessed included complications, tumor recurrence, survival, and function. Individual patient data were pooled from all the studies and quantitatively analyzed to assess the association of different factors with outcomes and complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included in this review with a total of 145 TES cases. Of all patients, 50% had at least 1 reported complication post surgery and this was associated with advancing age (OR 1.04,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
TES is associated with high rates of complications especially in association with primary malignant and metastatic diseases. However, the number of publications on this topic remain scarce and heterogeneous. Hence, there is a need for standardization in the reporting of the outcomes and complications to help with decision-making and consenting for this procedure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35086881
pii: 15/6/1223
doi: 10.14444/8155
pmc: PMC9541642
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1223-1233Informations de copyright
This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2021 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) report no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Sep;15(3):320-7
pubmed: 21639702
Chir Organi Mov. 1990;75(1 Suppl):94-6
pubmed: 2249570
Iowa Orthop J. 2010;30:69-75
pubmed: 21045974
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jan 1;36(1):74-82
pubmed: 20823784
World Neurosurg. 2018 Dec;120:28-35
pubmed: 30144592
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1981;67(3):421-30
pubmed: 6456520
J Spinal Disord. 2001 Jun;14(3):237-46
pubmed: 11389375
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 May 1;22(9):1036-44
pubmed: 9152458
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 May 1;36(10):E647-55
pubmed: 21217423
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Aug 15;21(16):1927-31
pubmed: 8875727
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jul;(232):62-9
pubmed: 3383503
Eur Spine J. 2008 Apr;17(4):600-9
pubmed: 18214553
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Apr 1;25(7):804-12
pubmed: 10751291
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 03;9(6):e98797
pubmed: 24893004
Eur Spine J. 2016 Dec;25(12):4080-4087
pubmed: 27262560
J Neurosurg. 2001 Apr;94(2 Suppl):232-44
pubmed: 11302626
J Orthop Sci. 2006 Jan;11(1):3-12
pubmed: 16437342
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
Eur Spine J. 2010 Feb;19(2):231-41
pubmed: 19690899
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Aug 15;24(16):1634-8
pubmed: 10472096
Eur Spine J. 2007 Aug;16(8):1193-202
pubmed: 17252218
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Aug 15;30(16):1899-908
pubmed: 16103863
World Neurosurg. 2018 Dec;120:e8-e16
pubmed: 29990608
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994 Sep;76(5):765-72
pubmed: 8083267
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jan 1;37(1):E37-45
pubmed: 22179322
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Sep;97(37):e12366
pubmed: 30212997
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Feb 1;22(3):324-33
pubmed: 9051895
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1971 May;53(2):288-95
pubmed: 4931082
Spine J. 2014 Nov 1;14(11):2608-17
pubmed: 24561037
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Aug;(245):72-82
pubmed: 2752635
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Jun 15;44(12):896-901
pubmed: 30817737
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Oct 15;34(22 Suppl):S31-8
pubmed: 19829275
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Sep 6;99(17):1476-1484
pubmed: 28872530
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Sep 1;28(17):E334-8
pubmed: 12973158
World Neurosurg. 2017 Feb;98:217-229
pubmed: 27794510
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Dec 15;30(24):2783-7
pubmed: 16371903