Perception of frailty in spinal metastatic disease: international survey of the AO Spine community.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty has not been clearly defined in the context of spinal metastatic disease (SMD). Given this, the objective of this study was to better understand how members of the international AO Spine community conceptualize, define, and assess frailty in SMD. METHODS: The AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor conducted an international cross-sectional survey of the AO Spine community. The survey was developed using a modified Delphi technique and was designed to capture preoperative surrogate markers of frailty and relevant postoperative clinical outcomes in the context of SMD. Responses were ranked using weighted averages. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement among respondents. RESULTS: Results were analyzed for 359 respondents, with an 87% completion rate. Study participants represented 71 countries. In the clinical setting, most respondents informally assess frailty and cognition in patients with SMD by forming a general perception based on clinical condition and patient history. Consensus was attained among respondents regarding the association between 14 preoperative clinical variables and frailty. Severe comorbidities, extensive systemic disease burden, and poor performance status were most associated with frailty. Severe comorbidities associated with frailty included high-risk cardiopulmonary disease, renal failure, liver failure, and malnutrition. The most clinically relevant outcomes were major complications, neurological recovery, and change in performance status. CONCLUSIONS: The respondents recognized that frailty is important, but they most commonly evaluate it based on general clinical impressions rather than using existing frailty tools. The authors identified numerous preoperative surrogate markers of frailty and postoperative clinical outcomes that spine surgeons perceived as most relevant in this population.

Research Practices and Needs Among Spine Surgeons Worldwide.

OBJECTIVE: Resource allocation to research activities is challenging and there is limited evidence to justify decisions. Members of AO Spine were surveyed to understand the research practices and needs of spine surgeons worldwide. METHODS: An 84-item survey was distributed to the AO Spine community in September of 2020. Respondent demographics and insights regarding research registries, training and education, mentorship, grants and financial support, and future directions were collected. Responses were anonymous and compared among regions. RESULTS: A total of 333 spine surgeons representing all geographic regions responded; 52.3% were affiliated with an academic/university hospital, 91.0% conducted clinical research, and 60.9% had 5+ years of research experience. There was heterogeneity among research practices and needs across regions. North American respondents had more research experience (P = .023), began conducting research early on (P < .001), had an undergraduate science degree (P < .001), and were more likely to have access to a research coordinator or support staff (P = .042) compared to other regions. While all regions expressed having the same challenges in conducting research, Latin America, and Middle East/Northern Africa respondents were less encouraged to do research (P < .001). Despite regional differences, there was global support for research registries and research training and education. CONCLUSION: To advance spine care worldwide, spine societies should establish guidelines, conduct studies on pain management, and support predictive analytic modeling. Tailoring local/regional programs according to regional needs is advised. These results can assist spine societies in developing long-term research strategies and provide justified rationale to governments and funding agencies.

Telemedicine in Spine Surgery: Global Perspectives and Practices.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. METHODS: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant's experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. RESULTS: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from <10.0% to >39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of "telemedicine" varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers "agreed/strongly agreed" telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to "agree" that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Spine Surgeons Worldwide: A One Year Prospective Comparative Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. OBJECTIVE: In March of 2020, an original study by Louie et al investigated the impact of COVID-19 on 902 spine surgeons internationally. Since then, due to varying government responses and public health initiatives to the pandemic, individual countries and regions of the world have been affected differently. Therefore, this follow-up study aimed to assess how the COVID-19 impact on spine surgeons has changed 1 year later. METHODS: A repeat, multi-dimensional, 90-item survey written in English was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via email to the AO Spine membership who agreed to receive surveys. Questions were categorized into the following domains: demographics, COVID-19 observations, preparedness, personal impact, patient care, and future perceptions. RESULTS: Basic respondent demographics, such as gender, age, home demographics, medical comorbidities, practice type, and years since training completion, were similar to those of the original 2020 survey. Significant differences between groups included reasons for COVID testing, opinions of media coverage, hospital unemployment, likelihood to be performing elective surgery, percentage of cases cancelled, percentage of personal income, sick leave, personal time allocation, stress coping mechanisms, and the belief that future guidelines were needed (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to baseline results collected at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, significant differences in various domains related to COVID-19 perceptions, hospital preparedness, practice impact, personal impact, and future perceptions have developed. Follow-up assessment of spine surgeons has further indicated that telemedicine and virtual education are mainstays. Such findings may help to inform and manage expectations and responses to any future outbreaks.

Spine Surgery and COVID-19: The Influence of Practice Type on Preparedness, Response, and Economic Impact.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate preparation, response, and economic impact of COVID-19 on private, public, academic, and privademic spine surgeons. METHODS: AO Spine COVID-19 and Spine Surgeon Global Impact Survey includes domains on surgeon demographics, location of practice, type of practice, COVID-19 perceptions, institutional preparedness and response, personal and practice impact, and future perceptions. The survey was distributed by AO Spine via email to members (n = 3805). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify differences between practice settings. RESULTS: A total of 902 surgeons completed the survey. In all, 45.4% of respondents worked in an academic setting, 22.9% in privademics, 16.1% in private practice, and 15.6% in public hospitals. Academic practice setting was independently associated with performing elective and emergent spine surgeries at the time of survey distribution. A majority of surgeons reported a >75% decrease in case volume. Private practice and privademic surgeons reported losing income at a higher rate compared with academic or public surgeons. Practice setting was associated with personal protective equipment availability and economic issues as a source of stress. CONCLUSIONS: The current study indicates that practice setting affected both preparedness and response to COVID-19. Surgeons in private and privademic practices reported increased worry about the economic implications of the current crisis compared with surgeons in academic and public hospitals. COVID-19 decreased overall clinical productivity, revenue, and income. Government response to the current pandemic and preparation for future pandemics needs to be adaptable to surgeons in all practice settings.

Telemedicine in research and training: spine surgeon perspectives and practices worldwide.

PURPOSE: To utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons' perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine. METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region. RESULTS: A total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = - 0.28, SD = ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Our study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform.

Spine surgeon perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine: an international study.

INTRODUCTION: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. METHODS: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation.

COVID-19 and the rise of virtual medicine in spine surgery: a worldwide study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many surgeons to adopt "virtual medicine" practices, defined as telehealth services for patient care and online platforms for continuing medical education. The purpose of this study was to assess spine surgeon reliance on virtual medicine during the pandemic and to discuss the future of virtual medicine in spine surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive survey addressing demographic data and virtual medicine practices was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide between March 27, 2020, and April 4, 2020. RESULTS: 902 spine surgeons representing seven global regions responded. 35.6% of surgeons were identified as "high telehealth users," conducting more than half of clinic visits virtually. Predictors of high telehealth utilization included working in an academic practice (OR = 1.68, p = 0.0015) and practicing in Europe/North America (OR 3.42, p < 0.0001). 80.1% of all surgeons were interested in online education. Dedicating more than 25% of one's practice to teaching (OR = 1.89, p = 0.037) predicted increased interest in online education. 26.2% of respondents were identified as "virtual medicine surgeons," defined as surgeons with both high telehealth usage and increased interest in online education. Living in Europe/North America and practicing in an academic practice increased odds of being a virtual medicine surgeon by 2.28 (p = 0.002) and 1.15 (p = 0.0082), respectively. 93.8% of surgeons reported interest in a centralized platform facilitating surgeon-to-surgeon communication. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has changed spine surgery by triggering rapid adoption of virtual medicine practices. The demonstrated global interest in virtual medicine suggests that it may become part of the "new normal" for surgeons in the post-pandemic era.

Provider confidence in the telemedicine spine evaluation: results from a global study.

PURPOSE: To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence. METHODS: Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant's experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03-5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71-8.84). CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology.

Correction to: Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

Unfortunately, the 13th author name has been incorrectly published in the original publication. The complete correct name is given below.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Spine Surgeons Worldwide.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, international survey. OBJECTIVES: The current study addressed the multi-dimensional impact of COVID-19 upon healthcare professionals, particularly spine surgeons, worldwide. Secondly, it aimed to identify geographical variations and similarities. METHODS: A multi-dimensional survey was distributed to surgeons worldwide. Questions were categorized into domains: demographics, COVID-19 observations, preparedness, personal impact, patient care, and future perceptions. RESULTS: 902 spine surgeons representing 7 global regions completed the survey. 36.8% reported co-morbidities. Of those that underwent viral testing, 15.8% tested positive for COVID-19, and testing likelihood was region-dependent; however, 7.2% would not disclose their infection to their patients. Family health concerns were greatest stressor globally (76.0%), with anxiety levels moderately high. Loss of income, clinical practice and current surgical management were region-dependent, whereby 50.4% indicated personal-protective-equipment were not adequate. 82.3% envisioned a change in their clinical practice as a result of COVID-19. More than 33% of clinical practice was via telemedicine. Research output and teaching/training impact was similar globally. 96.9% were interested in online medical education. 94.7% expressed a need for formal, international guidelines to manage COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this first, international study to assess the impact of COVID-19 on surgeons worldwide, we identified overall/regional variations and infection rate. The study raises awareness of the needs and challenges of surgeons that will serve as the foundation to establish interventions and guidelines to face future public health crises.

Personal Health of Spine Surgeons Can Impact Perceptions, Decision-Making and Healthcare Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic - A Worldwide Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if personal health of spine surgeons worldwide influences perceptions, healthcare delivery, and decision-making during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed by distributing a multidimensional survey to spine surgeons worldwide. Questions addressed demographics, impacts and perceptions of COVID-19, and the presence of surgeon comorbidities, which included cancer, cardiac disease, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, respiratory illness, renal disease, and current tobacco use. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify specific comorbidities that influenced various impact measures. RESULTS: Across 7 global regions, 36.8% out of 902 respondents reported a comorbidity, of which hypertension (21.9%) and obesity (15.6%) were the most common. Multivariate analysis noted tobacco users were more likely to continue performing elective surgery during the pandemic (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46-4.72; p = 0.001) and were less likely to utilize telecommunication (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86; p = 0.011), whereas those with hypertension were less likely to warn their patients should the surgeon become infected with COVID-19 (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.91; p = 0.017). Clinicians with multiple comorbidities were more likely to cite personal health as a current stressor (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63; p = 0.009) and perceived their hospital's management unfavorably (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91; p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to have mapped global variations of personal health of spine surgeons, key in the development for future wellness and patient management initiatives. This study underscored that spine surgeons worldwide are not immune to comorbidities, and their personal health influences various perceptions, healthcare delivery, and decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

PURPOSE: Spine surgeons around the world have been universally impacted by COVID-19. The current study addressed whether prior experience with disease epidemics among the spine surgeon community had an impact on preparedness and response toward COVID-19. METHODS: A 73-item survey was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via AO Spine. Questions focused on: demographics, COVID-19 preparedness, response, and impact. Respondents with and without prior epidemic experience (e.g., SARS, H1NI, MERS) were assessed on preparedness and response via univariate and multivariate modeling. Results of the survey were compared against the Global Health Security Index. RESULTS: Totally, 902 surgeons from 7 global regions completed the survey. 24.2% of respondents had prior experience with global health crises. Only 49.6% reported adequate access to personal protective equipment. There were no differences in preparedness reported by respondents with prior epidemic exposure. Government and hospital responses were fairly consistent around the world. Prior epidemic experience did not impact the presence of preparedness guidelines. There were subtle differences in sources of stress, coping strategies, performance of elective surgeries, and impact on income driven by prior epidemic exposure. 94.7% expressed a need for formal, international guidelines to help mitigate the impact of the current and future pandemics. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to note that prior experience with infectious disease crises did not appear to help spine surgeons prepare for the current COVID-19 pandemic. Based on survey results, the GHSI was not an effective measure of COVID-19 preparedness. Formal international guidelines for crisis preparedness are needed to mitigate future pandemics.

COVID-19: Current and future challenges in spine care and education - a worldwide study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted spine care around the globe. Much uncertainty remains regarding the immediate and long-term future of spine care and education in this COVID-19 era. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, international study of spine surgeons. METHODS: A multi-dimensional survey was distributed to spine surgeons around the world. A total of 73 questions were asked regarding demographics, COVID-19 observations, personal impact, effect on education, adoption of telemedicine, and anticipated challenges moving forward. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess factors related to likelihood of future conference attendance, future online education, and changes in surgical indications. RESULTS: A total of 902 spine surgeons from seven global regions completed the survey. Respondents reported a mean level of overall concern of 3.7 on a scale of one to five. 84.0% reported a decrease in clinical duties, and 67.0% reported a loss in personal income. The 82.5% reported being interested in continuing a high level of online education moving forward. Respondents who personally knew someone who tested positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be unwilling to attend a medical conference 1 year from now (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: [0.39, 0.95], P = .029). The 20.0% reported they plan to pursue an increased degree of nonoperative measures prior to surgery 1 year from now, and respondents with a spouse at home (OR: 3.55, 95% CI: [1.14, 11.08], P = .029) or who spend a large percentage of their time teaching (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: [1.02, 2.07], P = .040) were more likely to adopt this practice. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an adverse effect on surgeon teaching, clinical volume, and personal income. In the future, surgeons with family and those personally affected by COVID-19 may be more willing to alter surgical indications and change education and conference plans. Anticipating these changes may help the spine community appropriately plan for future challenges.

Responding to Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Changes During Pediatric Coronal Spinal Deformity Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case study on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this explorative study was: 1) to determine if patterns of spinal cord injury could be detected through intra-operative neuromonitoring (IONM) changes in pediatric patients undergoing spinal deformity corrections, 2) to identify if perfusion based or direct trauma causes of IONM changes could be distinguished, 3) to observe the effects of the interventions performed in response to these events, and 4) to attempt to identify different treatment algorithms for the different causes of IONM alerts. METHODS: Prospectively collected neuromonitoring data in pre-established forms on consecutive pediatric patients undergoing coronal spinal deformity surgery at a single center was reviewed. Real-time data was collected on IONM alerts with >50% loss in signal. Patients with alerts were divided into 2 groups: unilateral changes (direct cord trauma), and bilateral MEP changes (cord perfusion deficits). RESULTS: A total of 97 pediatric patients involving 71 females and 26 males with a mean age of 14.9 (11-18) years were included in this study. There were 39 alerts in 27 patients (27.8% overall incidence). All bilateral changes responded to a combination of transfusion, increasing blood pressure, and rod removal. Unilateral changes as a result of direct trauma, mainly during laminotomies for osteotomies, improved with removal of the causative agent. Following corrective actions in response to the alerts, all cases were completed as planned. Signal returned to near baseline in 20/27 patients at closure, with no new neurological deficits in this series. CONCLUSION: A high incidence of alerts occurred in this series of cases. Dividing IONM changes into perfusion-based vs direct trauma directed treatment to the offending cause, allowing for safe corrections of the deformities. Patients did not need to recover IONM signal to baseline to have a normal neurological examination.

Prognostic significance of human telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter region mutations C228T and C250T for overall survival in spinal chordomas.

BACKGROUND: Spinal chordomas, a subtype of primary spinal column malignancies (PSCM), are rare tumors with poor prognosis, and we have limited understanding of the molecular drivers of neoplasia. METHODS: Study design was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data with cross-sectional survival. Archived paraffin embedded pathologic specimens were collected for 133 patients from 6 centers within Europe and North America between 1987 and 2012. Tumor DNA was extracted and the human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) promoter was sequenced. The hTERT mutational status was correlated with overall survival (OS) and time to first local recurrence. RESULTS: Ninety-two chordomas, 26 chondrosarcomas, 7 osteosarcomas, 3 Ewing's sarcomas, and 5 other malignant spinal tumors were analyzed. Median OS following surgery was 5.8 years (95% CI: 4.6 to 6.9) and median time to first local recurrence was 3.9 years (95% CI: 2.5 to 6.7). Eight chordomas, 2 chondrosarcomas, 1 Ewing's sarcoma, and 1 other malignant spinal tumor harbored either a C228T or C250T mutation in the hTERT promoter. In the overall cohort, all patients with hTERT mutation were alive at 10 years postoperative with a median OS of 5.1 years (95% CI: 4.5 to 6.6) (P = 0.03). hTERT promoter mutation was observed in 8.7% of spinal chordomas, and 100% of chordoma patients harboring the mutation were alive at 10 years postoperative compared with 67% patients without the mutation (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We report for the first time that hTERT promoter mutations C228T and C250T are present in approximately 8.7% of spinal chordomas. The presence of hTERT mutations conferred a survival benefit and could potentially be a valuable positive prognostic molecular marker in spinal chordomas.

Current treatment strategy for newly diagnosed chordoma of the mobile spine and sacrum: results of an international survey.

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to investigate the spectrum of current treatment protocols for managing newly diagnosed chordoma of the mobile spine and sacrum.METHODSA survey on the treatment of spinal chordoma was distributed electronically to members of the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor, including neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists from North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Survey participants were pre-identified clinicians from centers with expertise in the treatment of spinal tumors. The suvey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.RESULTSThirty-nine of 43 (91%) participants completed the survey. Most (80%) indicated that they favor en bloc resection without preoperative neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT) when en bloc resection is feasible with acceptable morbidity. The main area of disagreement was with the role of postoperative RT, where 41% preferred giving RT only if positive margins were achieved and 38% preferred giving RT irrespective of margin status. When en bloc resection would result in significant morbidity, 33% preferred planned intralesional resection followed by RT, and 33% preferred giving neoadjuvant RT prior to surgery. In total, 8 treatment protocols were identified: 3 in which en bloc resection is feasible with acceptable morbidity and 5 in which en bloc resection would result in significant morbidity.CONCLUSIONSThe results confirm that there is treatment variability across centers worldwide for managing newly diagnosed chordoma of the mobile spine and sacrum. This information will be used to design an international prospective cohort study to determine the most appropriate treatment strategy for patients with spinal chordoma.

The Challenges of Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastatic to the Spine: A Systematic Review of Survival and Treatment.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to answer 2 key questions: (1) What is the clinical presentation and probability of symptomatic improvement following treatment for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of the spine? (2) What is the overall survival of patients diagnosed with spinal metastases from RCC? METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify articles that reported on survival, clinical outcomes, and/or prognostic factors in the RCC population with spinal metastases from 1986 to 2016. RESULTS: Forty-eight articles (807 patients) were included. The Fuhrman Nuclear Grade has been significantly associated with survival in previous studies but was underpowered in the current study. The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Score (MSKCC/Motzer) was also underpowered in the current study. From the time of spinal metastasis, the mean and median survival for patients with previously diagnosed primary RCC was 8.75 and 11.7 months, respectively, whereas synchronously diagnosed patients (primary RCC and spinal metastasis) had a mean and median survival of 6.75 and 11 months, respectively. Patients with a "low" (0-8), "intermediate" (9-11), or "high" (12-15) revised Tokuhashi score at initial presentation had a median survival of 5.4, 11.7, and 32.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with either a synchronous or latent diagnosis of RCC survived greater than 6 months from the time of presentation. Initial Furhman grade, Tokuhashi score, and MSKCC/Motzer can be useful tools in informing patient-specific prognosis for those with metastatic RCC of the spine.

An international consensus on the appropriate evaluation and treatment for adults with spinal deformity.

PURPOSE: Evaluation and surgical management for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients varies between health care providers. The purpose of this study is to identify appropriateness of specific approaches and management strategies for the treatment of ASD. METHODS: From January to July 2015, the AOSpine Knowledge Deformity Forum performed a modified Delphi survey where 53 experienced deformity surgeons from 24 countries, rated the appropriateness of management strategies for multiple ASD clinical scenarios. Four rounds were performed: three surveys and a face-to-face meeting. Consensus was achieved with ≥70% agreement. RESULTS: Appropriate surgical goals are improvement of function, pain, and neural symptoms. Appropriate preoperative patient evaluation includes recording information on history and comorbidities, and radiographic workup, including long standing films and MRI for all patients. Preoperative pulmonary and cardiac testing and DEXA scan is appropriate for at-risk patients. Intraoperatively, appropriate surgical strategies include long fusions with deformity correction for patients with large deformity and sagittal imbalance, and pelvic fixation for multilevel fusions with large curves, sagittal imbalance, and osteoporosis. Decompression alone is inappropriate in patients with large curves, sagittal imbalance, and progressive deformity. It is inappropriate to fuse to L5 in patients with symptomatic disk degeneration at L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide guidance for informed decision-making in the evaluation and management of ASD. Appropriate care for ASD, a very diverse spectrum of disease, must be responsive to patient preference and values, and considerations of the care provider, and the healthcare system. A monolithic approach to care should be avoided.