Dataset Information

Asymptomatic Construct Failure after Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery: A New Entity or a Continuum with Symptomatic Failure?

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Purpose

To study the incidence, onset, underlying mechanism, clinical course, and factors leading to asymptomatic construct failure (AsCF) after metastatic spinal tumor surgery (MSTS).

Overview of literature

The 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

AsCF 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.

SUBMITTER: Kumar N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8561154 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designRetrospective cohort study.PurposeTo 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 literatureFew 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:AimsRisk factors for asymptomatic echocardiographic abnormalities that predict symptomatic heart failure (HF) may provide insight into early mechanisms of HF pathogenesis. We examined risk factors associated with asymptomatic echocardiographic structural, systolic, and diastolic abnormalities, separately and in combination, and interactions between risk factors, in the prospective community-based SCReening Evaluation of the Evolution of New HF (SCREEN-HF) Study cohort of 3190 participants at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.Methods and resultsInclusion criteria were age ≥ 60 years with one or more of hypertension, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, valvular heart disease, abnormal heart rhythm, cerebrovascular disease, or renal impairment. Exclusion criteria were known HF, ejection fraction < 50%, or >mild valve abnormality. Structural, systolic, and diastolic echocardiographic abnormalities were defined according to the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study criteria, and risk factors for asymptomatic structural, systolic, and diastolic abnormalities were identified using logistic regression analysis. In multivariable analysis, increased body mass index (BMI), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy, and alcohol intake were risk factors for isolated structural abnormality, whereas male gender, increased heart rate, atrial fibrillation (AF), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy, and obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with a lower risk. Moreover, male gender, smoking, increased systolic blood pressure, and physical inactivity were risk factors for isolated systolic abnormality, whereas increased pulse pressure and antihypertensive therapy were associated with a lower risk. Furthermore, increased age, blood pressure, amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and warfarin therapy (associated with AF) were risk factors for isolated diastolic abnormality, whereas increased heart rate and triglyceride level (associated with BMI) were associated with a lower risk. The association of increased heart rate with lower risk of structural and diastolic abnormalities was independent of β-blocker therapy. Interactions between risk factors differed for structural, systolic, and diastolic abnormalities.ConclusionsThe different risk factors for asymptomatic structural, systolic, and diastolic abnormalities that predict symptomatic HF, and the interactions between risk factors, illustrate how these structural, systolic, and diastolic abnormalities represent unique trajectories that lead to symptomatic HF. Improved understanding of these trajectories may assist in the design of HF prevention strategies.