Treatment of ambulatory patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 10% of patients with spinal metastases develop metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), which left undiagnosed and untreated can lead to the loss of ambulation. Timely diagnosis and efficient multidisciplinary treatment are critically important to optimize neurological outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the most efficient treatment for ambulatory patients with MESCC. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of mobile patients with MESCC in terms of outcomes described as local control (LC), ambulatory function, quality of life (QOL), morbidity, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 54 papers (4101 patients) were included. A trend toward improved LC with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) was demonstrated: random effects modeling 1-year LC rate 86% (95% CI 84%-88%) versus 81% (95% CI 74%-86%) (p > 0.05), respectively, and common effects modeling 1-year LC rate 85% (95% CI 82%-87%) versus 76% (95% CI 74%-78%) (p < 0.05). Surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy, either cEBRT or SBRT, showed no significant benefit in either LC (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65-1.19) or ambulatory function (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.83-2.74) compared with radiotherapy without surgery. There was a significant benefit of surgery compared with cEBRT regarding QOL, and furthermore SBRT alone provided long-term improvement in QOL. The type of treatment was not a significant predictor of OS, but fully ambulatory status was significantly associated with improved OS (HR 0.46-0.52, relative risk 1.79-2.3). Radiation-induced myelopathy is a rare complication of SBRT (2 patients [0.1%] in the included papers). The morbidity rate associated with surgery was relatively high, with a 10% wound complication rate and 1.6% hardware-failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is an extremely promising treatment modality being integrated into treatment algorithms and provides durable LC. In mobile patients with MESCC, surgery does not improve LC, survival, or ambulatory function; nonetheless, there is a significant benefit of surgery in terms of QOL. In patients with MESCC without neurological deficit, the role of surgery is still debatable as studies demonstrate good LC for patients who undergo SBRT without preceding surgery. However, surgery can provide safe margins for the administration of the ablative dose of SBRT to the entire tumor volume within the constraints of spinal cord tolerance. Further randomized controlled trials are needed on the benefit of surgery before SBRT in mobile patients with MESCC. With the excellent results of separation surgery and SBRT, the role of highly invasive vertebrectomy is diminishing given the complication rate and morbidity of these procedures.

The Mayfield Skull Clamp: A Literature Review of Its Complications and Technical Nuances for Application.

BACKGROUND: The Mayfield skull clamp is the most commonly used 3-pin head immobilization device. It is routinely used in cranial neurosurgical procedures and selected cervical procedures. Despite its role in some serious complications, guidelines and nuances on the correct application of the Mayfield clamp are lacking. The goal of this article was to present an overview of the complications associated with the Mayfield skull clamp. We also present a conceptual framework of the correct use-in our opinion-of the Mayfield clamp in several standard approaches to avoid the most common complications. METHODS: PubMed was searched for original articles published between 1980 and 2020 with the search terms "Mayfield skull clamp" and "Mayfield head clamp." Eligibility criteria were availability of English abstract and complications clearly attributed to the Mayfield skull clamp. Both authors assessed all search results for eligibility. Additional articles were found with cross-references. RESULTS: The most common complications associated with Mayfield clamp application were due to vascular injury inflicted by the pins or skull fractures. Complications related to use of the Mayfield clamp were rare but often serious and avoidable. A conceptual framework was presented on how to avoid these complications. CONCLUSIONS: Attention to detail, anatomy, and the primum non nocere principle are imperative in every step of the neurosurgical pathway, including placement of the Mayfield skull clamp. Thoughtful application, taking into consideration several nuances, is recommended to avoid inadvertent patient harm.