Dataset Information

Symptomatic Construct Failure after Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Purpose

To evaluate the incidence and presentation of symptomatic failures (SFs) after metastatic spine tumor surgery (MSTS). To identify the associated risk factors. To categorize SFs based on the management in these patients.

Overview of literature

Few studies have reported on the incidence (1.9%-16%) and risk factors of SF after MSTS. It is unclear whether all SFs, occurring in MSTS-patients, result in revision surgery.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis on 288 patients (246 for final analysis) who underwent MSTS between 2005-2015. Data collected were demographics and peri/postoperative clinical and radiological features. Early and late radiological SF were defined as presentation before and after 3 months from index surgery, respectively. Univariate and multivariate models of competing risk regression analysis were designed to determine the risk factors for SF with death as a competing event.

Results

We observed 14 SFs (5.7%) in 246 patients; 10 (4.1%) underwent revision surgery. Median survival was 13.4 months. The mean age was 58.8 years (range, 21-87 years); 48.4% were women. The median time to failure was 5 months (range, 1-60 months). Patients with SF were categorized into three groups: (1) SF when the primary implant was revised (n=5, 35.7%); (2) peri-construct progression of disease requiring extension (n=5, 35.7%); and (3) SFs that did not warrant revision (n=4, 28.5%). Four patients (28.5%) presented with early failure. SF commonly occurred at the implant-bone interface (9/14) and all patients had a spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) >7. Thirteen patients (92.8%) who developed failure had fixation spanning junctional regions. Multivariate competing risk regression showed that preoperative Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was a significant risk factor for implant failure (adjusted sub-hazard ratio, 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-30.07; p<0.0009).

Conclusions

The incidence of SF (5.7%) was low in patients undergoing MSTS although these patients did not undergo spinal fusion. Preoperative ambulators involved a 7 times higher risk of failure than non-ambulators. Preoperative SINS >7 and fixations spanning junctional regions were associated with SF. Majority of construct failures occurred at the implant-bone interface.

SUBMITTER: Kumar N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8377214 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designRetrospective cohort study.PurposeTo study the incidence, onset, underlying mechanism, clinical course, and factors leading to asymptomatic construct failure (AsCF) after metastatic spinal tumor surgery (MSTS).Overview of literatureThe reported incidence rates for implant and/or construct failure after MSTS are low (1.9%-16%) and based on clinical presentations and revisions required for symptomatic failures (SFs). AsCF after MSTS has not been reported.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 288 patients (246 for final analysis) who underwent MSTS between 2005-2015. Data collected were demographics and peri/postoperative clinical and radiological features. Early and late radiological AsCF were defined as presentation before and after 3 months, respectively. We analyzed patients with AsCF for risk factors and survival duration by performing competing risk regression analyses where AsCF was the event of interest, with SF and death as competing events.ResultsWe observed AsCF in 41/246 patients (16.7%). The mean time to onset of AsCF after MSTS was 2 months (range, 1-9 months). Median survival of patients with AsCF was 20 and 41 months for early and late failures, respectively. Early AsCF accounted for 80.5% of cases, while late AsCF accounted for 19.5%. The commonest radiologically detectable AsCF mechanism was angular deformity (increase in kyphus) in 29 patients. Increasing age (p<0.02) and primary breast (13/41, 31.7%) (p<0.01) tumors were associated with higher AsCF rates. There was a non-significant trend towards AsCF in patients with a spinal instability neoplastic score ≥7, instrumentation across junctional regions, and construct lengths of 6-9 levels. None of the patients with AsCF underwent revision surgery.ConclusionsAsCF after MSTS is a distinct entity. Most patients with early AsCF did not require intervention. Patients who survived and maintained ambulation for longer periods had late failure. Increasing age and tumors with a better prognosis have a higher likelihood of developing AsCF. AsCF is not necessarily an indication for aggressive/urgent intervention.