Published in

SAGE Publications, Global Spine Journal, 6(13), p. 1622-1634, 2021

DOI: 10.1177/21925682211046904

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

International Variability in Spinal Metastasis Treatment: A Survey of the AO Spine Community

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Study Design International survey. Objectives To assess variability in the treatment practices for spinal metastases as a function of practice setting, surgical specialty, and fellowship training among an international group of spine surgeons. Methods An anonymous internet-based survey was disseminated to the AO Spine membership. The questionnaire contained items on practice settings, fellowship training, indications used for spinal metastasis surgery, surgical strategies, multidisciplinary team use, and postoperative follow-up priorities and practice. Results 341 gave complete responses to the survey with 76.3% identifying spinal oncology as a practice focus and 95.6% treating spinal metastases. 80% use the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) to guide instrumentation decision-making and 60.7% recruit multidisciplinary teams for some or all cases. Priorities for postoperative follow-up are adjuvant radiotherapy (80.9%) and systemic therapy (74.8%). Most schedule first follow-up within 6 weeks of surgery (62.2%). Significant response heterogeneity was seen when stratifying by practice in an academic or university-affiliated center, practice in a cancer center, completion of a spine oncology fellowship, and self-identification as a tumor specialist. Respondents belonging to any of these categories were more likely to utilize SINS ( P < .01-.02), recruit assistance from plastic surgeons (all P < .01), and incorporate radiation oncologists in postoperative care ( P < .01-.03). Conclusions The largest variability in practice strategies is based upon practice setting, spine tumor specialization, and completion of a spine oncology fellowship. These respondents were more likely to use evidenced-based practices. However, the response variability indicates the need for consensus building, particularly for postoperative spine metastasis care pathways and multidisciplinary team use.