Search

Background: Patients with spinal epidural metastases (SEM) often experience a reduction in ambulatory status and, thus, the quality of life. Predicting which patients will benefit from a surgical intervention remains a challenge. Life expectancy is an essential factor to be considered in surgical decision-making, although not the only one. Prediction models can add value in surgical decision-making. The goal of this study was to develop and internally validate a novel model (Limburg spinal metastases score [LSMS]) and compare the predictive value with 2 commonly used models: modified Bauer score and Oswestry Spinal Risk Index (OSRI)., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 144 consecutive patients who underwent surgical decompression for SEM in our centers between November 2006 and December 2020. Clinical and surgical parameters were evaluated. The novel prediction model was based on multivariate analysis and was internally validated. External validation of the 2 most commonly used prediction models was performed., Results: The median survival was 17 months, 55.7% of the immobile patients regained ambulation postoperatively. In 50 patients (34.7%), at least 1 complication occurred within 30 days after surgery. The LSMS consists of 4 parameters: primary tumor type, Karnofsky performance score, presence of visceral metastases, and presence of multiple spinal metastases. Bootstrap internal validation of the model developed on this cohort yielded an optimism-corrected c -statistic of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.80). The c -statistic of the OSRI score and the Bauer score was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64-0.74) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62-0.72), respectively., Conclusion: The LSMS consists of 4 parameters to assist surgical decision-making for patients with SEM. The score is easy to use and appears more accurate in our population in comparison with previous existing models., Clinical Relevance: A novel prediction model was developed to aid in surgical decision-making for patients with spinal epidural metastases., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests : The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2023 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.)

Background: The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is affected in 14% to 22% in individuals presenting with chronic low back or buttock pain. This percentage is even higher in patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery: 32% to 42%. Currently, there is no standard treatment or surgical indication for SIJ dysfunction. When patients do not respond well to nonsurgical treatment, minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) seems to be a reasonable option. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature on the effectiveness of MISJF compared to conservative management in patients with SIJ dysfunction., Methods: A systematic search of health-care databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies that compared MISJF with conservative management. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, and patient satisfaction measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, financial benefits, and costs., Results: Two RCTs and one retrospective cohort study were included comparing MISJF and conservative management with regard to pain and disability outcome, encompassing 388 patients (207 conservative and 181 surgical). In a pooled mean difference analysis, MISJF demonstrated greater reduction in visual analog scale-pain score compared to conservative management: -37.03 points (95%CI [-43.91, -30.15], P < 0.001). Moreover, MISJF was associated with a greater reduction in Oswestry Disability Index outcome: -21.14 points (95% CI [-24.93, -17.35], P < 0.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management., Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that MISJF, using cannulated triangular, titanium implants, is more effective and cost-effective than conservative management in reducing pain and disability in patients with SIJ dysfunction. Further well-powered, independent research is needed to improve the overall evidence., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2022 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.)