Global trends in the utilisation of NOMS framework for spinal metastasis management: A systematic review.

Q3 Medicine
Medical Journal of Malaysia Pub Date : 2024-09-01
J F L Tobing, E Kow, S D A L Tobing
{"title":"Global trends in the utilisation of NOMS framework for spinal metastasis management: A systematic review.","authors":"J F L Tobing, E Kow, S D A L Tobing","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Traditional risk stratification systems based on the clinicopathological criteria have limitations and may not accurately predict outcomes for all patients. The neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) framework aims to optimise treatment outcomes and improve patient care. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the NOMS framework within the context of spinal metastasis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study rigorously followed the guidelines set by PRISMA. We conducted an extensive search and be as transparent as possible across wellregarded databases such as PubMed and Euro PMC. The primary outcome measure focused on examining the feasibility of implementing the NOMS framework for patients with spinal metastasis in real-world clinical settings, and this measure was predefined and justified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included three studies involving 300 participants with spinal metastases at the cervicothoracic junction. The studies examined surgical interventions like decompression, fusion and corpectomy within the NOMS framework. Across the studies, the NOMS approach is consistently associated with adverse outcomes, including complication rates, surgical revisions, hardware complications, deformities, tumour recurrence and variable survival rates. It is also linked to hospital stays, ICU durations and specific discharge statuses. Another study focused on spinal metastasis patients undergoing endoscopic surgery, highlighting the NOMS framework's connection to recurrence rates, performance metrics, neurological status, pain management, functional recovery and quality of life. In addition, other studies explored navigated instrumentation, with a primary focus on screw placement accuracy. All three studies demonstrated methodological rigor by reporting adequate allocation concealment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NOMS framework consistently associates with adverse spinal metastasis surgery outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":39388,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Malaysia","volume":"79 5","pages":"608-614"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Malaysia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Traditional risk stratification systems based on the clinicopathological criteria have limitations and may not accurately predict outcomes for all patients. The neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) framework aims to optimise treatment outcomes and improve patient care. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the NOMS framework within the context of spinal metastasis.

Materials and methods: The study rigorously followed the guidelines set by PRISMA. We conducted an extensive search and be as transparent as possible across wellregarded databases such as PubMed and Euro PMC. The primary outcome measure focused on examining the feasibility of implementing the NOMS framework for patients with spinal metastasis in real-world clinical settings, and this measure was predefined and justified.

Results: This systematic review included three studies involving 300 participants with spinal metastases at the cervicothoracic junction. The studies examined surgical interventions like decompression, fusion and corpectomy within the NOMS framework. Across the studies, the NOMS approach is consistently associated with adverse outcomes, including complication rates, surgical revisions, hardware complications, deformities, tumour recurrence and variable survival rates. It is also linked to hospital stays, ICU durations and specific discharge statuses. Another study focused on spinal metastasis patients undergoing endoscopic surgery, highlighting the NOMS framework's connection to recurrence rates, performance metrics, neurological status, pain management, functional recovery and quality of life. In addition, other studies explored navigated instrumentation, with a primary focus on screw placement accuracy. All three studies demonstrated methodological rigor by reporting adequate allocation concealment.

Conclusion: NOMS framework consistently associates with adverse spinal metastasis surgery outcomes.

脊柱转移瘤管理中使用 NOMS 框架的全球趋势:系统回顾。
导言:基于临床病理学标准的传统风险分层系统存在局限性,可能无法准确预测所有患者的预后。神经、肿瘤、机械和系统(NOMS)框架旨在优化治疗效果并改善患者护理。在此,我们旨在全面概述脊柱转移背景下的 NOMS 框架:本研究严格遵循 PRISMA 规定的准则。我们在PubMed和Euro PMC等知名数据库中进行了广泛的搜索,并尽可能做到透明。主要结果衡量标准侧重于研究在实际临床环境中对脊柱转移患者实施NOMS框架的可行性,这一衡量标准是预先确定的,也是合理的:本系统综述包括三项研究,涉及 300 名颈胸交界处脊柱转移患者。这些研究在 NOMS 框架内检查了减压、融合和椎间盘切除等手术干预措施。在所有研究中,NOMS方法始终与不良后果相关,包括并发症发生率、手术翻修、硬件并发症、畸形、肿瘤复发和不同的存活率。它还与住院时间、重症监护室持续时间和特定的出院状态有关。另一项研究重点关注接受内窥镜手术的脊柱转移患者,强调了NOMS框架与复发率、绩效指标、神经状态、疼痛管理、功能恢复和生活质量的联系。此外,其他研究还探讨了导航器械,主要关注螺钉放置的准确性。所有三项研究都报告了充分的分配隐藏,证明了研究方法的严谨性:结论:NOMS框架始终与不利的脊柱转移手术结果相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Malaysia
Medical Journal of Malaysia Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: Published since 1890 this journal originated as the Journal of the Straits Medical Association. With the formation of the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Journal became the official organ, supervised by an editorial board. Some of the early Hon. Editors were Mr. H.M. McGladdery (1960 - 1964), Dr. A.A. Sandosham (1965 - 1977), Prof. Paul C.Y. Chen (1977 - 1987). It is a scientific journal, published quarterly and can be found in medical libraries in many parts of the world. The Journal also enjoys the status of being listed in the Index Medicus, the internationally accepted reference index of medical journals. The editorial columns often reflect the Association''s views and attitudes towards medical problems in the country. The MJM aims to be a peer reviewed scientific journal of the highest quality. We want to ensure that whatever data is published is true and any opinion expressed important to medical science. We believe being Malaysian is our unique niche; our priority will be for scientific knowledge about diseases found in Malaysia and for the practice of medicine in Malaysia. The MJM will archive knowledge about the changing pattern of human diseases and our endeavours to overcome them. It will also document how medicine develops as a profession in the nation. We will communicate and co-operate with other scientific journals in Malaysia. We seek articles that are of educational value to doctors. We will consider all unsolicited articles submitted to the journal and will commission distinguished Malaysians to write relevant review articles. We want to help doctors make better decisions and be good at judging the value of scientific data. We want to help doctors write better, to be articulate and precise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信