Posterior aggressive debulking versus minimal decompression surgery in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression: propensity-score-matching analysis from a multicenter study cohort.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Se-Jun Park, Jin-Sung Park, Dong-Ho Kang, Chong-Suh Lee, Bong-Soon Chang, Hyoungmin Kim, Sam Yeol Chang, Jiyong Lee
{"title":"Posterior aggressive debulking versus minimal decompression surgery in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression: propensity-score-matching analysis from a multicenter study cohort.","authors":"Se-Jun Park, Jin-Sung Park, Dong-Ho Kang, Chong-Suh Lee, Bong-Soon Chang, Hyoungmin Kim, Sam Yeol Chang, Jiyong Lee","doi":"10.3171/2024.7.SPINE24206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study was to evaluate the comparative outcomes of aggressive debulking (AD) and minimal decompression (MD) surgeries for metastatic spinal cord compression based on surgical burden, functional improvement, and symptomatic local recurrence (SLR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective analysis from 2 tertiary hospitals, the authors assessed patients with metastatic spinal cord compression treated via AD and MD surgeries between 2010 and 2022. The evaluation included patient demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), primary tumor type, modified Tokuhashi scores, surgical burden, and SLR. Propensity-score matching (1:1 ratio) was conducted based on oncological status for intergroup comparisons. Survival analysis and logistic regression analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 264 patients were included in the study. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, a total of 156 matched patients were analyzed (78 patients each in the AD and MD groups). Operation time, estimated blood loss, transfused red blood cell units, and inpatient medical complications were significantly higher in the AD group compared to the MD group (p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.006, and p = 0.035, respectively). There was no significant difference in distribution of postoperative ECOG-PS between the AD and MD groups (OR 1.461, 95% CI 0.821-2.599, p = 0.197). In initially nonambulatory patients (ECOG-PS of grade 3 or 4), the AD group showed a higher proportion of patients regaining ambulatory function compared to the MD group (56.5% vs 36.2%; OR 2.294, p = 0.049). In cases with a preoperative ECOG-PS of grade 3, the difference in ambulation recovery between AD and MD was not statistically significant (60.0% vs 53.3%, p = 0.577). However, for severely impaired patients (ECOG-PS of grade 4), the AD group showed a higher proportion of patients regaining ambulatory function compared to the MD group (33.3% vs 5.9%, p = 0.086). Symptomatic SLR-free survival showed no significant differences at final follow-up (p = 0.095). Multivariate analysis identified the modified Tokuhashi score as the sole predictor of SLR (OR 1.871, p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that MD surgery significantly reduced surgical burden compared to AD. AD surgery led to slightly better functional recovery showing greater rescue ratios, especially in patients with a preoperative ECOG-PS of grade 4. However, no difference in rescue ratio was observed in patients with a preoperative ECOG-PS of grade 3. There was no significant difference in SLR rates between the AD and MD groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.7.SPINE24206","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the comparative outcomes of aggressive debulking (AD) and minimal decompression (MD) surgeries for metastatic spinal cord compression based on surgical burden, functional improvement, and symptomatic local recurrence (SLR).

Methods: In this retrospective analysis from 2 tertiary hospitals, the authors assessed patients with metastatic spinal cord compression treated via AD and MD surgeries between 2010 and 2022. The evaluation included patient demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), primary tumor type, modified Tokuhashi scores, surgical burden, and SLR. Propensity-score matching (1:1 ratio) was conducted based on oncological status for intergroup comparisons. Survival analysis and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

Results: A total of 264 patients were included in the study. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, a total of 156 matched patients were analyzed (78 patients each in the AD and MD groups). Operation time, estimated blood loss, transfused red blood cell units, and inpatient medical complications were significantly higher in the AD group compared to the MD group (p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.006, and p = 0.035, respectively). There was no significant difference in distribution of postoperative ECOG-PS between the AD and MD groups (OR 1.461, 95% CI 0.821-2.599, p = 0.197). In initially nonambulatory patients (ECOG-PS of grade 3 or 4), the AD group showed a higher proportion of patients regaining ambulatory function compared to the MD group (56.5% vs 36.2%; OR 2.294, p = 0.049). In cases with a preoperative ECOG-PS of grade 3, the difference in ambulation recovery between AD and MD was not statistically significant (60.0% vs 53.3%, p = 0.577). However, for severely impaired patients (ECOG-PS of grade 4), the AD group showed a higher proportion of patients regaining ambulatory function compared to the MD group (33.3% vs 5.9%, p = 0.086). Symptomatic SLR-free survival showed no significant differences at final follow-up (p = 0.095). Multivariate analysis identified the modified Tokuhashi score as the sole predictor of SLR (OR 1.871, p = 0.001).

Conclusions: This study found that MD surgery significantly reduced surgical burden compared to AD. AD surgery led to slightly better functional recovery showing greater rescue ratios, especially in patients with a preoperative ECOG-PS of grade 4. However, no difference in rescue ratio was observed in patients with a preoperative ECOG-PS of grade 3. There was no significant difference in SLR rates between the AD and MD groups.

转移性脊髓压迫症患者的后路侵袭性剥离与最小减压手术:多中心研究队列的倾向分数匹配分析。
研究目的本研究的目的是根据手术负担、功能改善和症状性局部复发(SLR)评估积极去骨手术(AD)和最小减压手术(MD)治疗转移性脊髓压迫的比较结果:在这项来自两家三级医院的回顾性分析中,作者评估了2010年至2022年间通过AD和MD手术治疗的转移性脊髓压迫症患者。评估内容包括患者的人口统计学特征、东部合作肿瘤学组表现状态(ECOG-PS)、原发肿瘤类型、改良德桥评分、手术负担和SLR。在进行组间比较时,根据肿瘤状态进行倾向分数匹配(1:1 比例)。进行了生存分析和逻辑回归分析:共有 264 名患者纳入研究。经过 1:1 倾向分数匹配后,共分析了 156 例匹配患者(AD 组和 MD 组各 78 例)。与 MD 组相比,AD 组的手术时间、估计失血量、输血红细胞单位和住院医疗并发症明显较高(分别为 p = 0.001、p = 0.002、p = 0.006 和 p = 0.035)。AD 组和 MD 组的术后 ECOG-PS 分布无明显差异(OR 1.461,95% CI 0.821-2.599,p = 0.197)。在最初无法行动的患者(ECOG-PS 为 3 级或 4 级)中,与 MD 组相比,AD 组患者恢复行动功能的比例更高(56.5% vs 36.2%;OR 2.294,p = 0.049)。对于术前 ECOG-PS 为 3 级的病例,AD 组和 MD 组在恢复行动能力方面的差异无统计学意义(60.0% vs 53.3%,p = 0.577)。然而,对于功能严重受损的患者(ECOG-PS 为 4 级),与 MD 组相比,AD 组患者恢复活动功能的比例更高(33.3% vs 5.9%,p = 0.086)。在最终随访中,无症状 SLR 存活率无明显差异(p = 0.095)。多变量分析发现,改良德桥评分是预测 SLR 的唯一指标(OR 1.871,p = 0.001):本研究发现,与 AD 相比,MD 手术明显减轻了手术负担。AD手术的功能恢复稍好,抢救成功率更高,尤其是术前ECOG-PS为4级的患者。然而,术前 ECOG-PS 为 3 级的患者的抢救成功率没有差异。AD 组和 MD 组的 SLR 率没有明显差异。
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
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
×
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