Efficacy and safety of en-bloc resection versus debulking for spinal tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to consolidate the existing evidence regarding the comparison between en-bloc resection surgery and debulking surgery for spinal tumors, including both primary and metastatic tumors. The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, Web of Science, Scopus, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP Database (VIP), and Wan Fang Database was carried out and included all studies that directly compared en-bloc resection surgery with debulking surgery for spinal tumors in patients through March 2024. The primary outcomes included recurrence rate, postoperative metastasis rate, mortality rate, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), complication, and so on. The statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3. We systematically reviewed 868 articles and included 27 studies involving 1135 patients who underwent either en-bloc resection surgery (37.89%) or debulking surgery (62.11%). Our meta-analysis demonstrated significant advantages of en-bloc resection over debulking surgery. Specifically, the en-bloc resection group had a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.13–0.28, P < 0.00001), lower postoperative metastasis rate (P = 0.002), and lower mortality rate (P < 0.00001). Additionally, en-bloc resection could improve OS and RFS (HR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.32–0.62, P < 0.00001 and HR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17–0.80, P = 0.01, respectively). However, en-bloc resection required longer operative times and was associated with a higher overall complication rate compared to debulking surgery (P = 0.0005 and P < 0.00001, respectively). The current evidence indicates that en-bloc surgical resection can effectively control tumor recurrence and mortality, as well as improve RFS and OS for patients with spinal tumors. However, it is crucial not to overlook the potential risks of perioperative complications. Ultimately, these findings should undergo additional validation through multi-center, double-blind, and large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs).