Ailon, Tamir T.

OBJECTIVEPrimary osteosarcoma of the spine is a rare osseous neoplasm. While previously reported retrospective studies have demonstrated that overall patient survival is impacted mostly by en bloc resection and chemotherapy, the continued management of residual disease remains to be elucidated. This systematic review was designed to address the role of revision surgery and multimodal adjuvant therapy in cases in which en bloc excision is not initially achieved.METHODSA systematic literature search spanning the years 1966 to 2015 was performed on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify reports describing outcomes of patients who underwent biopsy alone, neurological decompression, or intralesional resection for osteosarcoma of the spine. Studies were reviewed qualitatively, and the clinical course of individual patients was aggregated for quantitative meta-analysis.RESULTSA total of 16 studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review, of which 8 case reports were summarized qualitatively. These studies strongly support the role of chemotherapy for overall survival and moderately support adjuvant radiation therapy for local control. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant benefit in overall survival for performing revision tumor debulking (p = 0.01) and also for chemotherapy at relapse (p < 0.01). Adjuvant radiation therapy was associated with longer survival, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06).CONCLUSIONSWhile the initial therapeutic goal in the management of osteosarcoma of the spine is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by en bloc marginal resection, this objective is not always achievable given anatomical constraints and other limitations at the time of initial clinical presentation. This systematic review supports the continued aggressive use of revision surgery and multimodal adjuvant therapy when possible to improve outcomes in patients who initially undergo subtotal debulking of osteosarcoma. A limitation of this systematic review is that lesions amenable to subsequent resection or tumors inherently more sensitive to adjuvants would exaggerate a therapeutic effect of these interventions when studied in a retrospective fashion.

Study Design: This study was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Objectives: Rare complications of cervical spine surgery are inherently difficult to investigate. Pseudomeningocoele (PMC), an abnormal collection of cerebrospinal fluid that communicates with the subarachnoid space, is one such complication. In order to evaluate and better understand the incidence, presentation, treatment, and outcome of PMC following cervical spine surgery, we conducted a multicenter study to pool our collective experience. Methods: This study was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients who underwent cervical spine surgery at any level(s) from C2 to C7, inclusive; were over 18 years of age; and experienced a postoperative PMC. Results: Thirteen patients (0.08%) developed a postoperative PMC, 6 (46.2%) of whom were female. They had an average age of 48.2 years and stayed in hospital a mean of 11.2 days. Three patients were current smokers, 3 previous smokers, 5 had never smoked, and 2 had unknown smoking status. The majority, 10 (76.9%), were associated with posterior surgery, whereas 3 (23.1%) occurred after an anterior procedure. Myelopathy was the most common indication for operations that were complicated by PMC (46%). Seven patients (53%) required a surgical procedure to address the PMC, whereas the remaining 6 were treated conservatively. All PMCs ultimately resolved or were successfully treated with no residual effects. Conclusions: PMC is a rare complication of cervical surgery with an incidence of less than 0.1%. They prolong hospital stay. PMCs occurred more frequently in association with posterior approaches. Approximately half of PMCs required surgery and all ultimately resolved without residual neurologic or other long-term effects.

Introduction Primary tumors of the spine requiring enbloc resection are rare. Most published reports are small and focus on disease free survival and recurrence rates. Very few studies focus on the various anterior and posterior reconstructive options and subsequent outcomes with respect to fusion rates and need for revision due to hardware failure. The objective of this review was to (1) summarize the published literature and (2) report the failure rates of various anterior and posterior reconstructive techniques after enbloc resection of spinal tumors and (3) supplement the deficiencies in the available published literature with expert opinion for reconstructive options from a group of experienced international spine tumor surgeons. Material and Methods An electronic search of the literature was undertaken from January 1990 – December 2013 evaluating specific reconstructive techniques of the spine after primary tumor enbloc resection. Prospective/retrospective trials and case series were included in the final analysis when fusion rates or failure rates were reported. The data available for each reconstructive technique was then combined and construct survivorship was summarized. In addition, a questionnaire was administered to a group of 20 international spine tumor surgeons evaluating specific reconstructive preferences at different regions of the spine based on the number of vertebrae resected and whether post-operative radiation was planned. Results The initial search yielded 381 articles with 31 subsequently included for full text review. Fourteen articles were included in the final analysis. There were 146 patients included for final review. There were 2/9 (22%) patients revised from short to long segment constructs and 3 reports of broken pedicle screws with only one requiring revision in longer constructs. Rates of revision for anterior reconstruction were similar for autogenous strut grafts (10%), cages (7.7%) and allograft strut grafts (8.3%). No surgeons responding to the questionnaire recommended short segment posterior constructs. For anterior reconstruction, cages packed with morcellized allograft and autograft were preferred (75%, p < 0.05) while strut bone grafting was choosen more often at the cervicothoracic junction (65%, p < 0.05) and when more than one vertebrae was resected in the mid thoracic spine (75%, p < 0.05). Few surgeons changed their anterior reconstructive technique (15%) or posterior reconstructive technique (10%) when post-operative radiation was planned. Conclusion The literature and consensus opinion supports posterior reconstruction with at least two vertebral levels of support above and below. For anterior vertebral column reconstruction, structural allograft, autograft and cages packed with morcelized bone have shown similar rates of fusion and failure. Expert opinion, however, suggests that structural autograft or potentially vascularized strut grafts should be used when spanning a defect greater than 2 vertebral bodies especially at the cervicothoracic junction.