Conventional Radiotherapy Timing and Wound Complication Avoidance After Surgery for Metastatic Spine Disease. A LatAm Modified Delphi Study.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY World neurosurgery Pub Date : 2025-01-13 DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.123575
Federico Landriel, Kevin White, Fernando Padilla Lichtenberger, Alfredo Guiroy, Alisson Teles, Eduardo Laos Plasier, Jerônimo Buzetti Milano, Marcelo Risso, Nelson Astur, Oscar González, Ratko Yurac, Rodolfo Páez, William Teixeira, Maximiliano Toscano, Santiago Hem
{"title":"Conventional Radiotherapy Timing and Wound Complication Avoidance After Surgery for Metastatic Spine Disease. A LatAm Modified Delphi Study.","authors":"Federico Landriel, Kevin White, Fernando Padilla Lichtenberger, Alfredo Guiroy, Alisson Teles, Eduardo Laos Plasier, Jerônimo Buzetti Milano, Marcelo Risso, Nelson Astur, Oscar González, Ratko Yurac, Rodolfo Páez, William Teixeira, Maximiliano Toscano, Santiago Hem","doi":"10.1016/j.wneu.2024.123575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Combining surgery and radiotherapy is the gold standard in treating spinal metastasis when spinal stabilization or surgical decompression is required. Determining the optimal timing for radiotherapy postsurgery is crucial to balance treatment efficacy minimizing wound complications. The study aimed to identify consensus and nonconsensus areas among Latin American spinal surgeons regarding the use, timing, risks, and surgical approach to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) following spinal surgery for metastases, specifically focusing on the risk of radiotherapy-related wound complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A modified Delphi survey was conducted. The expert panel included active members of AOSpine Latin America with extensive experience in vertebral metastasis surgery. The surveys include 37 statements covering areas of interest. Inter-expert consensus was considered weak (70-79.9%), moderate (80-89.9%), and strong (≥90%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At least 70% consensus was reached on 32 of the 37 statements (86.5%). This included strong consensus on 10 statements, moderate on 13, and weaker on nine. There was high consensus on sutures and lower consensus on risk factors for cEBRT delay. Experts reached strong agreement on the importance of poor nutrition as a risk factor for cEBRT-related wound complications. Perception of wound risk was greater with a posterior midline approach compared to other approaches, and the highest perceived complication risks were for junctional locations and sacral spine.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We report strong agreements among the experts on important issues such as waiting times and risk factors for cEBRT. The findings underscore the significance of considering factors such as, spinal levels, surgical approaches, and sutures when making clinical decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":23906,"journal":{"name":"World neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"123575"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.123575","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Combining surgery and radiotherapy is the gold standard in treating spinal metastasis when spinal stabilization or surgical decompression is required. Determining the optimal timing for radiotherapy postsurgery is crucial to balance treatment efficacy minimizing wound complications. The study aimed to identify consensus and nonconsensus areas among Latin American spinal surgeons regarding the use, timing, risks, and surgical approach to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) following spinal surgery for metastases, specifically focusing on the risk of radiotherapy-related wound complications.

Methods: A modified Delphi survey was conducted. The expert panel included active members of AOSpine Latin America with extensive experience in vertebral metastasis surgery. The surveys include 37 statements covering areas of interest. Inter-expert consensus was considered weak (70-79.9%), moderate (80-89.9%), and strong (≥90%).

Results: At least 70% consensus was reached on 32 of the 37 statements (86.5%). This included strong consensus on 10 statements, moderate on 13, and weaker on nine. There was high consensus on sutures and lower consensus on risk factors for cEBRT delay. Experts reached strong agreement on the importance of poor nutrition as a risk factor for cEBRT-related wound complications. Perception of wound risk was greater with a posterior midline approach compared to other approaches, and the highest perceived complication risks were for junctional locations and sacral spine.

Conclusions: We report strong agreements among the experts on important issues such as waiting times and risk factors for cEBRT. The findings underscore the significance of considering factors such as, spinal levels, surgical approaches, and sutures when making clinical decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
转移性脊柱疾病术后常规放疗时机及伤口并发症的避免。LatAm修正Delphi研究。
背景:当需要脊柱稳定或手术减压时,手术加放疗是治疗脊柱转移的金标准。确定最佳的术后放疗时机对于平衡治疗效果、减少伤口并发症至关重要。该研究旨在确定拉丁美洲脊柱外科医生关于脊柱转移手术后常规外束放疗(cEBRT)的使用、时间、风险和手术方法的共识和非共识领域,特别关注放疗相关伤口并发症的风险。方法:采用改进的德尔菲调查法。专家小组包括在椎体转移手术方面具有丰富经验的拉丁美洲AOSpine活跃成员。调查包括37项声明,涵盖感兴趣的领域。专家间共识被认为是弱(70-79.9%)、中等(80-89.9%)和强(≥90%)。结果:37条表述中有32条(86.5%)的共识率达到70%以上。其中,10项声明达成强烈共识,13项达成中等共识,9项达成较弱共识。对于缝合线的一致性较高,而对于延迟cEBRT的危险因素的一致性较低。专家们对营养不良作为脑卒中相关伤口并发症的危险因素的重要性达成了强烈的共识。与其他入路相比,后路中线入路的伤口风险感知更大,最高的并发症感知风险是交界部位和骶骨。结论:我们报告了专家在等待时间和风险因素等重要问题上的强烈共识。研究结果强调了在做出临床决定时考虑诸如脊柱水平、手术入路和缝合线等因素的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World neurosurgery
World neurosurgery CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
1765
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: World Neurosurgery has an open access mirror journal World Neurosurgery: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The journal''s mission is to: -To provide a first-class international forum and a 2-way conduit for dialogue that is relevant to neurosurgeons and providers who care for neurosurgery patients. The categories of the exchanged information include clinical and basic science, as well as global information that provide social, political, educational, economic, cultural or societal insights and knowledge that are of significance and relevance to worldwide neurosurgery patient care. -To act as a primary intellectual catalyst for the stimulation of creativity, the creation of new knowledge, and the enhancement of quality neurosurgical care worldwide. -To provide a forum for communication that enriches the lives of all neurosurgeons and their colleagues; and, in so doing, enriches the lives of their patients. Topics to be addressed in World Neurosurgery include: EDUCATION, ECONOMICS, RESEARCH, POLITICS, HISTORY, CULTURE, CLINICAL SCIENCE, LABORATORY SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES, CLINICAL IMAGES, VIDEOS
期刊最新文献
Comparative Analysis of Hemorrhagic Complications in Deep Brain Stimulation: Microelectrode Recording versus Macrostimulation-Does the Technique Matter? Development and Validation of Machine Learning-Based Model for Hospital Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Interventional Embolization for Intracranial Aneurysms. Reduced Vertebral Hounsfield Unit Values in the Bridging Group of Ossification-Related Segments in Patients with Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament of the Cervical Spine. The Role of Neuropsychology in the Management of Spinal Cord Injury: A Comprehensive Literature Review. In Reply to the Letter to the Editor Regarding: "Intersection of Care: Navigating Patient-Hospital Relationships in Neurosurgery".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1