The aim of this study was to develop a surgical invasiveness index for metastatic spine tumor surgery (MSTS) that can serve as a standardized tool in predicting intraoperative blood loss and surgical duration; for the purpose of ascertaining resource requirements and aiding in patient education.
Summary of Background Data.
Magnitude of surgery is important in the metastatic spine disease (MSD) population since these patients have a continuing postoperative oncological process; a consideration that must be taken into account to maintain or improve quality of life. Surgical invasiveness indices have been established for general spine surgery, adult deformity, and cervical deformity, but not yet for spinal metastasis.
Demographic, oncological, and procedural data were collected from consecutive patients that underwent MSTS. Binary logistic regression, using median values for surgical duration and intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), was used to determine statistical significance of variables to be included in the “spinal metastasis invasiveness index” (SMII). The corresponding weightage of each of these variables was agreed upon by experienced spine surgeons. Multivariable regression analysis was used to predict operative time and EBL while controlling for demographical, procedural, and oncological characteristics.
Two hundred and sixty-one MSD patients were included with a mean age of 59.7-years and near equal sex distribution. The SMII strongly predicted extended surgical duration (R2 = 0.28, P < 0.001) and high intraoperative blood loss (R2 = 0.18, P < 0.001). When compared to a previously established surgical invasiveness index, the SMII accounted for more variability in the outcomes. For every unit increase in score, there was a 42-mL increase in mean blood loss (P < 0.001) and 5-minute increase in mean operative time (P < 0.001).
Long surgical duration and high blood loss were strongly predicted by the newly developed SMII. The use of the SMII may aid in preoperative risk assessment with the goal of improving patient outcomes and quality of life.
Level of Evidence: 4