Molina, Camilo A.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: En bloc spondylectomies are essential for controlling malignant spinal tumors, but existing classification systems are often complex and impractical. This study introduces the Column, Line-of-Sight, Margins, Ring (CLiMR) framework, a novel system simplifying and standardizing en bloc spondylectomy planning and classification. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent single- or multistage en bloc spinal tumor resections was conducted at a single academic center (October 2019-December 2024). The CLiMR framework assigns scores to 4 components: Column (osteotomies/diskectomies for tumor release), Line-of-Sight (approach for circumferential access), Margin (adjacent structures sacrificed), and Ring (size of the vertebral ring window for safe delivery of neural tissue). Scores were applied using operative notes and imaging. RESULTS: Column scores ranged from 0.5 to 4.5. Of the patients included, 40.9% underwent sagittal split osteotomies, 22.7% radical diskectomies, 18.2% horizontal osteotomies, and the remaining 18.2% combinations of previous osteotomies . A posterior-only approach (Line-of-Sight score = 1) was used in 45.4% of cases, whereas 45.4% required a multistage approach (score = 2). Margin scores reflected increasing morbidity: 31.8% (n = 7) involving chest wall/pleura resection (grade 3), 40.9% (n = 9) requiring eloquent nerve sacrifice (grade 6), and 9.1% (n = 2) necessitating limb sacrifice (grade 7). The majority (86.4%, n = 19) of ring scores were grade 1, requiring laminectomies/facetectomies. The mean CLiMR score was 9.36 ± 2.43, with higher scores correlating with longer hospital stays (R = 0.64, P = .0012), longer case durations (R = 0.61, P = .0023), and increased blood loss (R = 0.40, P = .067). Patients with local recurrence, positive margins, or complications trended toward greater CLiMR scores. CONCLUSION: The CLiMR framework provides a novel, user-friendly method for planning and communicating en bloc spondylectomies. By addressing technical complexities and morbidity, CLiMR enables standardized assessment, facilitates surgical decision-making, and supports future research. This study demonstrates feasibility and lays the foundation for future validation studies.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: Surgical decompression and reconstruction of symptomatic spinal metastases has improved the quality of life in cancer patients. However, most data has been collected on cohorts of patients with mixed tumor histopathology. We systematically reviewed the literature for prognostic factors specific to the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine. Methods: A systemic review of the literature was conducted to answer the following questions: Question 1. Describe the survival and functional outcomes of surgery or vertebral augmentation for prostate metastases to the spine. Question 2. Determine whether overall tumor burden, Gleason score, preoperative functional markers, and hormonal naivety favor operative intervention. Question 3. Establish whether clinical outcomes vary with the evolution of operative techniques. Results: A total of 16 studies met the preset inclusion criteria. All included studies were retrospective series with a level of evidence of IV. Included studies consistently showed a large effect of hormone-naivety on overall survival. Additionally, studies consistently demonstrated an improvement in motor function and the ability to maintain/regain ambulation following surgery resulting in moderate strength of recommendation. All other parameters were of insufficient or low strength. Conclusions: There is a dearth of literature regarding the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine, which represents an opportunity for future research. Based on existing evidence, it appears that the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine has consistently favorable results. While no consistent preoperative indicators favor nonoperative treatment, hormone-naivety and high Karnofsky performance scores have positive effects on survival and clinical outcomes.