Browse

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • By Author: Fisher, Charles G. x
  • By Author: Ailon, Tamir x
Clear All
Restricted access

Jin W. Tee, Carly S. Rivers, Nader Fallah, Vanessa K. Noonan, Brian K. Kwon, Charles G. Fisher, John T. Street, Tamir Ailon, Nicolas Dea, Scott Paquette and Marcel F. Dvorak

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to use decision tree modeling to identify optimal stratification groups considering both the neurological impairment and spinal column injury and to investigate the change in motor score as an example of a practical application. Inherent heterogeneity in spinal cord injury (SCI) introduces variation in natural recovery, compromising the ability to identify true treatment effects in clinical research. Optimized stratification factors to create homogeneous groups of participants would improve accurate identification of true treatment effects.

METHODS

The analysis cohort consisted of patients with acute traumatic SCI registered in the Vancouver Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry (RHSCIR) between 2004 and 2014. Severity of neurological injury (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS grades A–D]), level of injury (cervical, thoracic), and total motor score (TMS) were assessed using the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury examination; morphological injury to the spinal column assessed using the AOSpine classification (AOSC types A–C, C most severe) and age were also included. Decision trees were used to determine the most homogeneous groupings of participants based on TMS at admission and discharge from in-hospital care.

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 806 participants; 79.3% were male, and the mean age was 46.7 ± 19.9 years. Distribution of severity of neurological injury at admission was AIS grade A in 40.0% of patients, grade B in 11.3%, grade C in 18.9%, and grade D in 29.9%. The level of injury was cervical in 68.7% of patients and thoracolumbar in 31.3%. An AOSC type A injury was found in 33.1% of patients, type B in 25.6%, and type C in 37.8%. Decision tree analysis identified 6 optimal stratification groups for assessing TMS: 1) AOSC type A or B, cervical injury, and age ≤ 32 years; 2) AOSC type A or B, cervical injury, and age > 32–53 years; 3) AOSC type A or B, cervical injury, and age > 53 years; 4) AOSC type A or B and thoracic injury; 5) AOSC type C and cervical injury; and 6) AOSC type C and thoracic injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate stratification factors are fundamental to accurately identify treatment effects. Inclusion of AOSC type improves stratification, and use of the 6 stratification groups could minimize confounding effects of variable neurological recovery so that effective treatments can be identified.

Restricted access

Clinical outcomes research in spine surgery: what are appropriate follow-up times?

Presented at the 2018 AANS/CNS Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves

Oliver G. S. Ayling, Tamir Ailon, Greg McIntosh, Alex Soroceanu, Hamilton Hall, Andrew Nataraj, Christopher S. Bailey, Sean Christie, Alexandra Stratton, Henry Ahn, Michael Johnson, Jerome Paquet, Kenneth Thomas, Neil Manson, Y. Raja Rampersaud and Charles G. Fisher

OBJECTIVE

There has been a generic dictum in spine and musculoskeletal clinical research that a minimum 2-year follow-up is necessary for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to adequately assess the therapeutic effect of surgery; however, the rationale for this duration is not evidence based. The purpose of this study was to determine the follow-up time necessary to ensure that the effectiveness of a lumbar surgical intervention is adequately captured for three lumbar pathologies and three common PROs.

METHODS

Using the different PROs of pain, physical function, and mental quality of life from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) prospective database, the authors assessed the time course to the recovery plateau following lumbar spine surgery for lumbar disc herniation, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis. One-way ANOVA with post hoc testing was used to compare scores on the following standardized PRO measures at baseline and 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively: Disability Scale (DS), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS).

RESULTS

Significant differences for all spine pathologies and specific PROs were found with one-way ANOVA (p < 0.0001). The time to plateaued recovery after surgery for lumbar disc herniation (661 patients), lumbar stenosis (913 patients), and lumbar spondylolisthesis (563 patients) followed the same course for the following PRO measures: VAS for back and leg pain, 3 months; DS, 12 months; PCS, 12 months; and MCS, 3 months. Beyond these time points, no further significant improvements in PROs were seen. Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis or spinal stenosis who had undergone fusion surgery plateaued at 12 months on the DS and PCS, compared to 3 months in those who had not undergone fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific health dimensions follow distinctly different recovery plateaus, indicating that a 2-year postoperative follow-up is not required for all PROs to accurately assess the treatment effect of lumbar spinal surgery. Ultimately, the clinical research question should dictate the follow-up time and the outcome measure utilized; however, there is now evidence to guide the specific duration of follow-up for pain, physical function, and mental quality of life dimensions.

Full access

Ganesh M. Shankar, Michelle J. Clarke, Tamir Ailon, Laurence D. Rhines, Shreyaskumar R. Patel, Arjun Sahgal, Ilya Laufer, Dean Chou, Mark H. Bilsky, Daniel M. Sciubba, Michael G. Fehlings, Charles G. Fisher, Ziya L. Gokaslan and John H. Shin

OBJECTIVE

Primary 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.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

A 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).

CONCLUSIONS

While 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.