Survival and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression: Results from the AOSpine Prospective Multi-Centre Study of 142 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Although surgery is being increasingly used in patients with Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression (MESCC) as a complementary strategy to radiation and chemotherapy, the impact of surgery on quality of life (QoL) is not well established. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate survival, neurological, functional, and QoL outcomes in MESCC patients undergoing operative management. Material and Methods A total of 142 surgically treated patients with a single symptomatic MESCC lesion enrolled in a prospective North American multi-center study were followed for 12 months. Clinical data, such as Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), ASIA, SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D scores, were obtained both pre- and post-operatively. Results The median survival was 7.7 months. The 30-day and 12-month mortality rates were 9% and 62%, respectively. Six weeks post-operatively, ambulatory status ( p = 0.02) and bladder control ( p = 0.03) were significantly improved. Overall, 67.5% of ASIA B, C, or D patients gained at least 1 grade after surgery, 25% remained stable, and 7.5% deteriorated. ODI, EQ-5D, BPI scores were significantly improved at each follow-up (p ≤ 0.01). SF-36 scores were generally higher after surgery for mental and physical components, and for all domains except energy/fatigue. The incidence of wound complications was 10% and 2 patients required a second surgery (screw malposition and epidural hematoma). Conclusion Surgical intervention, as a complementary adjunct to radiation and chemotherapy, provides immediate and sustained improvement in pain, neurological, functional, and QoL outcomes with acceptable risks in patients with a focal symptomatic MESCC lesion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".