Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Feb 1;26(3):298-306. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200102010-00016.
A new surgical strategy for treatment of patients with spinal metastases was designed, and 61 patients were treated based on this strategy.
To propose a new surgical strategy for the treatment of patients with spinal metastases.
A preoperative score composed of six parameters has been proposed by Tokuhashi et al for the prognostic assessment of patients with metastases to the spine. Their scoring system was designed for deciding between excisional or palliative procedures. Recently, aggressive surgery, such as total en bloc spondylectomy for spinal metastases, has been advocated for selected patients. Surgical strategies should include various treatments ranging from wide or marginal excision to palliative treatment with hospice care.
Sixty-seven patients with spinal metastases who had been treated from 1987-1991 were reviewed, and prognostic factors were evaluated retrospectively (phase 1). A new scoring system for spinal metastases that was designed based on these data consists of three prognostic factors: 1) grade of malignancy (slow growth, 1 point; moderate growth, 2 points; rapid growth, 4 points), 2) visceral metastases (no metastasis, 0 points; treatable, 2 points: untreatable, 4 points), and 3) bone metastases (solitary or isolated, 1 point; multiple, 2 points). These three factors were added together to give a prognostic score between 2-10. The treatment goal for each patient was set according to this prognostic score. The strategy for each patient was decided along with the treatment goal: a prognostic score of 2-3 points suggested a wide or marginal excision for long-term local control; 4-5 points indicated marginal or intralesional excision for middle-term local control; 6-7 points justified palliative surgery for short-term palliation; and 8-10 points indicated nonoperative supportive care. Sixty-one patients were treated prospectively according to this surgical strategy between 1993-1996 (phase 2). The extent of the spinal metastases was stratified using the surgical classification of spinal tumors, and technically appropriate and feasible surgery was performed, such as en bloc spondylectomy, piecemeal thorough excision, curettage, or palliative surgery.
The mean survival time of the 28 patients treated with wide or marginal excision was 38.2 months (26 had successful local control). The mean survival time of the 13 patients treated with intralesional excision was 21.5 months (nine had successful local control). The mean survival time of the 11 patients treated with palliative surgery and stabilization was 10.1 months (eight had successful local control). The mean survival time of the patients with terminal care was 5.3 months.
A new surgical strategy for spinal metastases based on the prognostic scoring system is proposed. This strategy provides appropriate guidelines for treatment in all patients with spinal metastases.
设计了一种治疗脊柱转移瘤患者的新手术策略,并基于此策略治疗了61例患者。
提出一种治疗脊柱转移瘤患者的新手术策略。
Tokuhashi等人提出了一个由六个参数组成的术前评分系统,用于评估脊柱转移瘤患者的预后。他们的评分系统旨在决定采用切除性手术还是姑息性手术。最近,有人主张对部分患者进行积极的手术,如脊柱转移瘤的整块全脊椎切除术。手术策略应包括从广泛或边缘切除到临终关怀姑息治疗等各种治疗方法。
回顾了1987年至1991年期间接受治疗的67例脊柱转移瘤患者,并对预后因素进行回顾性评估(第一阶段)。基于这些数据设计的一种新的脊柱转移瘤评分系统由三个预后因素组成:1)恶性程度(生长缓慢,1分;生长中等,2分;生长迅速,4分),2)内脏转移(无转移,0分;可治疗,2分;不可治疗,4分),3)骨转移(孤立或单发,1分;多发,2分)。将这三个因素相加得到一个2至10分的预后评分。根据这个预后评分确定每位患者的治疗目标。根据治疗目标确定每位患者的策略:预后评分为2至3分表明采用广泛或边缘切除以实现长期局部控制;4至5分表明采用边缘或病损内切除以实现中期局部控制;6至7分表明进行姑息性手术以实现短期姑息治疗;8至10分表明采用非手术支持治疗。1993年至1996年期间,61例患者根据此手术策略进行了前瞻性治疗(第二阶段)。使用脊柱肿瘤的手术分类对脊柱转移瘤的范围进行分层,并进行技术上合适且可行的手术,如整块全脊椎切除术、分块彻底切除、刮除术或姑息性手术。
28例行广泛或边缘切除的患者的平均生存时间为38.2个月(26例局部控制成功)。13例行病损内切除的患者的平均生存时间为21.5个月(9例局部控制成功)。11例行姑息性手术和内固定的患者的平均生存时间为10.1个月(8例局部控制成功)。接受临终关怀的患者的平均生存时间为5.3个月。
提出了一种基于预后评分系统的脊柱转移瘤新手术策略。该策略为所有脊柱转移瘤患者的治疗提供了适当的指导方针。