Feasibility and Safety of En Bloc Resection for Primary Spine Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Systematic review. Objectives. To determine the general feasibility and safety of en bloc resection for primary spine tumors by analyzing (1) the effect of incisional biopsy performed before definitive en bloc resection and (2) the rate of achievement of disease-free margins, morbidity, mortality, and health resource utilization. Summary of Background Data. The feasibility of en bloc resection is determined by careful surgical and oncologic staging, and a key step in this process is obtaining a tissue diagnosis. There is currently good evidence to support the premise that the best chance for surgical cure in primary tumors of the spine is by en bloc resection with disease-free margins; however, the early morbidity of these procedures begs the question of whether they are justified. Methods. A formal systematic review with search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases was undertaken. Included reports described patients with low grade malignant spine tumors, the method of staging and surgical resection, and the complications. Two blinded, independent reviewers used a standardized study selection worksheet. Results. About 89 articles were identified, with 8 selected after excluding small case series and studies that included other pathologies (e.g., metastatic disease). Weinstein, Boriani, Biagini staging accurately predicted the attainment of wide or marginal en bloc resection in 88% of cases. There was a clear increase in tumor recurrence when intralesional procedures were performed before the definitive en bloc resection. Tumor recurrence significantly shortened patient survival. Surgical complication rates ranged from 13% to 56% and mortality ranged from 0% to 7.7%. Conclusion. (1) Incisional biopsy or intralesional resection significantly increases the risk of local recurrence, therefore, transcutaneous computed tomography-guided trocar biopsy is recommended. When there is a suspicion of primary spine tumor, the surgeon who performs the definitive surgery should ideally perform or direct the biopsy procedure. (2) En bloc resection is achievable if staging determines that it is feasible. The adverse event profile of these surgeries is high even at experienced centers. Therefore, experienced, multidisciplinary teams should perform these surgeries. (3) Grade of Recommendation can be “strong recommendation, low-quality evidence.” A systematic review was performed to determine (1) the effect of incisional procedures prior en bloc resection for primary spine tumors and (2) the rate of achievement of disease-free margins, morbidity, and mortality. There was a clear increase in tumor recurrence after intralesional procedures. Weinstein, Boriani, Biagini staging accurately predicted disease-free margins in the majority of cases. The adverse event profile of en bloc resection is high even at experienced centers.
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 | 0.024 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".