MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049446030 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b8b796

Feasibility and Safety of En Bloc Resection for Primary Spine Tumors

2009· review· en· W2049446030 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgerySystematic reviewVertebrectomyMEDLINEResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it