4.5 Article

Surgical Techniques and Associated Outcomes of Primary Chondrosarcoma of the Spine

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 119, Issue -, Pages E32-E45

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.189

Keywords

Chondrosarcoma; En bloc; Piecemeal; Primary; Spine; Surgery; Tumor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Only a few case reports and case series exist reporting on primary chondrosarcomas of the spine. The objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of this patient population and surgical techniques used for treatment. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in January 2018 querying several scientific databases, per PRISMA guidelines. Surgery type was categorized into en bloc, piecemeal excision, or non-en bloc or piecemeal excision. RESULTS: In total, 34 records and 3 patients were included in the systematic review, yielding 87 patients with primary chondrosarcoma of the spine. The mean age was 41.5 years, with the tumor most commonly arising in adult patients (90.8%, 79/87); most were male (66.7%, 58/87). Those who underwent piecemeal excision had the highest death rate (56.7%, P <= 0.001) and highest rate of recurrence (63.3%, P <= 0.001) compared with en bloc and non-en bloc or piecemeal excision. The calculated reduced relative risk (RR) comparing en bloc with the other surgical techniques for recurrence and mortality was 78.8% (RR, 0.21; P <= 0.001) and 80.7% (RR, 0.19; P <= 0.001), respectively. Survival analysis showed patients with a piecemeal excision had 9.4 times hazards ratio for death compared with en bloc (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CS is a rare lesion that most commonly presents in adult male patients. En bloc surgical resection was associated with a significant decrease in recurrence, mortality, and increased survival compared with the other surgical techniques. In addition, any surgical technique that involved entering the tumor capsule showed a significantly greater risk for recurrence and death.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available