Surgical outcomes and natural history of intramedullary spinal cord cavernous malformations: a single-center series and meta-analysis of individual patient data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Information pertaining to the natural history of intramedullary spinal cord cavernous malformations (ISCCMs) and patient outcomes after surgery is scarce. To evaluate factors associated with favorable outcomes for patients with surgically and conservatively managed ISCCMs, the authors performed a systematic review and metaanalysis of the literature. In addition, they included their single-center series of ISCCMs. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and The Cochrane Library for studies published through June 2013 that reported cases of ISCCMs. Data from all eligible studies were used to examine the epidemiology, clinical features, and neurological outcomes of patients with surgically managed and conservatively treated ISCCMs. To evaluate several variables as predictors of favorable neurological outcomes, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of individual patient data and performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Variables included patient age, patient sex, lesion spinal level, lesion size, cerebral cavernomas, family history of cavernous malformations, clinical course, presenting symptoms, treatment strategy (operative or conservative), symptom duration, surgical approach, spinal location, and extent of resection. In addition, they performed a meta-analysis to determine a pooled estimate of the annual hemorrhage rate of ISCCMs. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria were met by 40 studies, totaling 632 patients, including the authors' institutional series of 24 patients. Mean patient age was 39.1 years (range 2-80 years), and the male-to-female ratio was 1.1:1. Spinal levels of cavernomas were cervical (38%), cervicothoracic (2.4%), thoracic (55.2%), thoracolumbar (0.6%), lumbar (2.1%), and conus medullaris (1.7%). Average cavernoma size was 9.2 mm. Associated cerebral cavernomas occurred in 16.5% of patients, and a family history of cavernous malformation was found for 11.9% of evaluated patients. Clinical course was acute with stepwise progression for 45.4% of patients and slowly progressive for 54.6%. Symptoms were motor (60.5%), sensory (57.8%), pain (33.8%), bladder and/or bowel (23.6%), respiratory distress (0.5%), or absent (asymptomatic; 0.9%). The calculated pooled annual rate of hemorrhage was 2.1% (95% CI 1.3%-3.3%). Most (89.9%) patients underwent resection, and 10.1% underwent conservative management (observation). Outcomes were better for those who underwent resection than for those who underwent conservative management (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.46-5.33, p = 0.002). A positive correlation with improved neurological outcomes was found for resection within 3 months of symptom onset (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.31-3.41, p = 0.002), hemilaminectomy approach (OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.16-8.86, p = 0.03), and gross-total resection (OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.24-10.52, p = 0.02). Better outcomes were predicted by an acute clinical course (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10-2.68, p = 0.02) and motor symptoms (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08-2.86, p = 0.02); poor neurological recovery was predicted by sensory symptoms (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.98, p = 0.04). Rates of neurological improvement after resection were no higher for patients with superficial ISCCMs than for those with deep-seated ISCCMs (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.71-2.60, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Intramedullary spinal cord cavernous malformations tend to be clinically progressive. The authors' findings support an operative management plan for patients with a symptomatic ISCCM. Surgical goals include gross-total resection through a more minimally invasive hemilaminectomy approach within 3 months of presentation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".