Charles G. Fisher

Specialized acute and rehabilitation care for traumatic spinal cord injury aims to improve outcomes. This study assessed whether receiving specialized acut

Background: The hemodynamic management of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) aims to improve perfusion and mitigate ischemic secondary injury to the injured spinal cord, traditionally through the augmentation of mean arterial pressure (MAP). Recently, there has been interest in managing spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP)—the difference between MAP and intrathecal pressure (ITP) —after acute SCI. SCPP may be more physiologically relevant than MAP for neurologic recovery after traumatic SCI. Drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through a lumbar intrathecal catheter to reduce ITP and increase SCPP is commonly performed to reduce the risk of ischemic paralysis in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) surgery. We investigated a protocol for CSF drainage through intrathecal catheters to maintain SCPP ≥65 mmHg in participants with acute traumatic SCI. We sought to determine if managing SCPP was associated with better neurologic recovery compared to traditional MAP targets. Methods and findings: Fifty-eight participants with acute SCI (51 ± 19 years, 46M/12F) were enrolled across eight North American sites between August 2019 and May 2024 into this prospective single-arm multi-center clinical trial of CSF drainage for SCPP management ( NCT03911492 ). Data were compared to data from a historical cohort of 86 participants (44 ± 19 years, 72M/14F) who had intrathecal catheters inserted for SCPP measurement only; these participants were managed according to conventional MAP guidelines with a target MAP of 85–90 mmHg (NCT01279811). MAP, ITP, SCPP, intrathecal waveform morphology, vasopressor use, and CSF drainage volume were reported for up to 7 days following SCI. Fifteen participants in the intervention group were lost to follow-up. Neurological assessments at enrollment and 6-months post-SCI were compared. The investigator team ended the trial when it was clear that adherence to the protocol was inconsistent across study sites. Participants managed according to the SCPP management protocol had an intrathecal catheter in place 138 hours (95% CI [129,147]) and 495cc (95% CI [350,641]) of CSF drained. No CSF was drained from seven participants. There were no significant differences in hemodynamic measures such as ITP and SCPP between groups, indicating that the SCPP management protocol did not alter the hemodynamic management. Subsequently, there were no differences in measures of neurological recovery between participants managed according to SCPP management protocol and conventional MAP guidelines ( p = 0.897). Participants managed according to an SCPP target had more ITP waveform recordings noted as dampened or fully pulsatile suggesting a patent subarachnoid space (p = 0.006) and were administered vasopressors on fewer hourly observations (p = 0.004). Six reported adverse events were probably related to the intervention. Adherence to a protocol for managing SCPP through CSF drainage across multiple sites was challenging. Conclusions: Ultimately, our protocol resulted in little CSF being drained, limited modification of ITP and SCPP, and no effect on neurological recovery. The relationship between CSF drainage volume and change in ITP was surprisingly unclear. This study revealed that draining CSF is more complex in traumatic SCI than in TAAA surgery patients. Future efforts to reduce ITP through CSF drainage likely need to address the occlusion of the subarachnoid space at the injury site through aggressive surgical decompression techniques.

Background: Knowledge translation (KT) interventions are essential for implementing evidence-based practices in healthcare. However, despite their proven effectiveness in addressing global health challenges, KT strategies in surgery remain challenging to apply. This scoping review examines KT strategies in surgery, their effectiveness, and key barriers and enablers to their implementation. Methods: This scoping review followed the Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al. frameworks, integrating the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and the PRISM (Practical Robust Implementation Sustainability Model) models to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions in surgical practice change and associated contextual barriers and facilitators. A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE (PubMed, OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (ProQuest). Articles were screened using predefined selection criteria, emphasizing experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Data extraction categorized KT interventions: knowledge diffusion, dissemination, and implementation approaches. Results: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were hospital-based (88%) and focused on guideline adherence. The review identified three primary KT strategies: (i) educational materials and educational outreach, (ii) reminders and prompts, and (iii) audit and feedback systems. The most effective KT strategies used a combination of these interventions to maximize impact. Barriers included physician resistance, limited leadership support, financial constraints, and workflow disruptions, while enablers included institutional leadership, structured training programs, financial incentives, and interdisciplinary collaboration. A notable finding was the lack of standardized validation processes for adopting changes in the surgical setting, which often burdens individual surgeons and their institutions, thereby constraining both capacity and motivation for practice change. Conclusions: Findings suggest that layered, interdisciplinary KT strategies are the most effective for driving surgical practice change and overcoming institutional barriers. The integrated application of RE-AIM and PRISM frameworks proved valuable in assessing the interventions’ sustainability and real-world effectiveness. This comprehensive analysis contributes to the growing body of knowledge on effective implementation strategies in surgical settings and provides a foundation for future practice improvement initiatives. Future research should focus on refining KT methodologies, expanding implementation frameworks, and addressing barriers to sustainability across diverse surgical settings.

Study Design.: Delphi consensus. Objective.: To define an optimal surgical composite outcome measure in patients with metastatic spine disease (OSCO-M) through international consensus among key opinion leaders. Materials and Methods.: Members of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor, an international group of dedicated spine oncology surgeons and oncologists, participated in a modified Delphi process between March 2023 and November 2024. The study was conducted in 2 parts. The first part aimed on identifying which outcome variables were deemed important to be included in the composite outcome. The second part focused on the definition of a successful outcome with regards to the agreed variables from Part 1. Each part consisted of a questionnaire and a consensus meeting. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of 70% agreement was reached. Results.: A total of 42 dedicated spine oncology surgeons and oncologists from North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia participated. Over 87% of respondents agreed that composite measures reflect the multidimensional aspect of the surgical process more than an individual outcome variable. Most respondents (93%) agreed/strongly agreed that composite measures should be used to assess the quality of surgical care in spine oncology. Through consensus, the following three outcome variables were selected to define the OSCO-M: the absence of SAVES-V2 (Spinal Adverse Events Severity System, Version 2) grade 3 adverse events or higher within 30 days of surgery, maintaining or improving ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status at 90 days, and being ambulatory (with or without aid) at 90 days. Conclusion.: This is the first study defining a composite outcome measure in oncologic surgery for spinal metastases derived from an international group of key opinion leaders in spine oncology. The OSCO-M may be useful for future research in spine tumor patients and serve as a benchmark to optimize outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is a standardized tool for assessing malnutrition in patients with cancer. The primary aim of this study was to assess the impact of preoperative nutritional status as measured by PG-SGA on survival in patients requiring surgical intervention and/or radiotherapy for spinal metastases. METHODS: Patients with spinal metastases who underwent surgery and/or radiation therapy for symptomatic spinal metastases were enrolled in the AO Spine Metastatic Tumor Research and Outcomes Network, a prospective international multicenter research registry, between September 2017 and August 2022. Using the PG-SGA, nutritional status was classified into 3 categories: A, well nourished; B, moderately malnourished; and C, severely malnourished. RESULTS: A total of 589 patients met the inclusion criteria; 362 were classified as well nourished (61%), 159 were moderately malnourished (27%), and 68 were severely malnourished (12%). The median survival was 491 days, 328 days, and 117 days for well-nourished, moderately malnourished, and severely malnourished patients, respectively. In the multivariate analyses, severe malnourishment (HR 2.5 95% CI 1.4-4.3, P < .01) and an ECOG performance status of 3 or 4 (HR 2.7 95% CI 1.2-6.0) remained associated with significantly worse survival. CONCLUSION: Malnutrition as measured by the PG-SGA demonstrated to be significantly and independently associated with postoperative survival. The PG-SGA is a simple and useful tool to identify spinal metastases patients at risk of early postoperative mortality, and inclusion in the preoperative evaluation of these patients should be considered.

Study Design: Narrative Review. Objectives: To summarize the work of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor, specifically studies from the Epidemiology, Process and Outcomes in Spine Oncology (EPOSO) study. Methods: A narrative review of all published manuscripts from the EPOSO study was undertaken. EPOSO represents a multicenter, prospective registry effort across 10 North American and European sites to enroll patients with metastatic disease of the spine. Results: The current review summarized all studies from the EPOSO network, divided into the following five sections: (1) quality of life and satisfaction, (2) overall survival, (3) spinal instability, (4) neurologic outcome in patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression or radicular pain, and (5) patient and tumor-specific factors. Several important findings were elucidated. Patient evaluation should include SINS, nutritional status, severity and duration of neurologic deficit, extent of metastatic tumor burden, and differentiation of axial from radicular pain. Moreover, SOSGOQ2.0 serves as a useful and validated instrument for patient-reported outcome instrument. Despite the palliative nature of metastatic spine surgery, clear improvement in quality-of-life is seen. Even in patients with short-survival, the remaining weeks and months of life result in improved quality-of-life. Metastatic spine surgery often improves neurologic function, potentially enhancing survival through increased performance status. Conclusions: Several noteworthy results have come from the EPOSO network, highlighting important trends in metastatic spine care. The AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor has helped advancing metastatic spine tumor research as well as ensure these new findings reach and benefit clinicians and their patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aggressive resection for primary tumors of the spine are associated with a high rate of adverse events (AEs), but the impact of AEs on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unknown and is critical to the shared decision-making. Our primary objective was to assess the impact of surgical AEs on PROs using an international registry. Assessing the impact on clinical outcomes and identifying risk factors for AEs were our secondary objectives. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for a primary spinal tumor were selected through the Primary Tumor Research and Outcomes Network. Our primary outcome was the impact of AEs on PROs at 3 and 12 months after surgery (measured with Spinal Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire, Short-Form 36, and EuroQol 5 Dimension). We also assessed the impact on clinical outcomes (local control, surgical margins, readmission, reoperation, and mortality). We stratified our results according to severity of AEs, histology, and type of resection. RESULTS: 374 patients met inclusion criteria (219 males/155 females). The mean age of the cohort was 48.7 years. The most frequent histology was chordoma (37.3%) followed by chondrosarcoma (8.8%). Sixty-seven patients (17.9%) experienced at least 1 intraoperative AE and 117 patients (31.3%) had at least 1 postoperative AE within 3 months. Overall, 159 patients (42.5%) experienced AEs. The readmission rate was significantly higher in patients who experienced AEs (Any AE: 10.1% vs no AE: 1.9% within 3 months; P = <0.001). PROs were not significantly affected by AEs in most questionnaires. Local control, risk of reoperation, mortality, and achieving preplanned margins were similar between AE groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of surgical AEs is considerable in this population. Surgical AEs seem to be associated with a higher number of readmissions, but do not seem to result in significant differences in PROs or in a higher risk of reoperation, mortality, and failure to achieve preplanned margins.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The palliative impact of spine surgery for metastatic disease is evolving with improvements in surgical technique and multidisciplinary cancer care. The goal of this study was to prospectively evaluate long-term clinical outcomes including health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures, using spine cancer–specific patient-reported-outcome (PRO) measures, in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases who underwent surgical management. METHODS: The Epidemiology, Process, and Outcomes of Spine Oncology (EPOSO, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01825161) trial is a prospective-observational cohort study that included 10 specialist centers in North America and Europe. Patients aged 18 to 75 years who underwent surgery for spinal metastases were included. Prospective assessments included both spine tumor–specific and generic PRO tools which were collected for a minimum of 2 years post-treatment or until death. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty patients (51.8% female, mean age 57.9 years) were included. At presentation, the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6.0, 35.7% had neurological deficits as defined by the American Spinal Cord Injury Association scores, 47.2% had high-grade epidural spinal cord compression (2-3), and 89.6% had impending or frank instability as measured by a Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score of ≥7. The most common primary tumor sites were breast (20.2%), lung (18.8%), kidney (16.2%), and prostate (6.5%). The median overall survival postsurgery was 501 days, and the 2-year progression-free-survival rate was 38.4%. Compared with baseline, significant and durable improvements in HRQOL were observed at the 6-week, 12-week, 26-week, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up assessments from a battery of PRO questionnaires including the spine cancer–specific, validated, Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0, the Short Form 36 version 2, EuroQol-5 Dimension (3L), and pain numerical rating scale score. CONCLUSION: Multi-institutional, prospective-outcomes data confirm that surgical decompression and/or stabilization provides meaningful and durable improvements in multiple HRQOL domains, including spine-specific outcomes based on the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0, for patients with metastatic spine disease.