Spinal Meningiomas Prognostic Evaluation Score (SPES): predicting the neurological outcomes in spinal meningioma surgery
- 93 Downloads
Among many factors leading to a worse functional prognosis in spinal meningioma (SM) surgery, in a previous study, we recognized anterior/anterolateral axial topography, sphincter involvement at first evaluation, surgery performed on a recurrence, and worse preoperative functional status. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the cumulative weight of these factors on prognosis through a multinomial logistic regression model performed on an original evaluation scale designed by the authors on the ground of the experience of the neurosurgical departments of our University. The original SM database composed of 173 cases was classified in regard to sex, age, symptoms, axial and sagittal location, Simpson grade resection, and functional pre/postoperative status. Fine presurgical and follow-up reevaluations were available. The authors propose a scale (Spinal Meningiomas Prognostic Evaluation Score (SPES)) of preoperative evaluation to assess the surgery-related risk of neurological worsening experienced by the patients included in the present cohort. The authors describe a strong statistical association between the SPES and the follow-up Frankel and McCormick scores (r = − 460 and .441, p .001, both). Through a univariate ANOVA analysis, we disclosed that patients presenting scores 2 and 3 had a significantly higher association to lesser Frankel and McCormick postoperative scores, in respect to patients presenting SPES scores 0–1 (univariate ANOVA, p .008 and .011). Anterior or anterolateral axial location, operating on a recurrence of SM, sphincter involvement, and worse functional grade at onset present, along with the SPES scores are fairly predictive and reliable in respect to the long-term results of patients suffering from SM.
KeywordsIntradural Extramedullary Meningioma Multinomial logistic regression Spinal cord
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The present paper contains results obtained from a retrospective study. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. No identifying information about participants is available in the article.
- 4.Bayoumi AB, Laviv Y, Karaali CN, Ertilav K, Kepoglu U, Toktas ZO, Konya D, Kasper EM (2017) Spinal Meningiomas: 61 cases with predictors of early postoperative surgical outcomes. J Neurosurg Sci. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.17.04102-9
- 9.Cushing H, Eisenhardt L (1938) Meningiomas. Their classification, regional behaviour, life history, and surgical end results. Bull Med Libr Assoc 27(2):185Google Scholar
- 12.Gezen F, Kahraman S, Çanakci Z, Bedük A. (2000) Review of 36 cases of spinal cord meningioma. Spine 25(6):727–731Google Scholar
- 32.Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R (2011) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD001431–CD001431Google Scholar
- 33.Sun SQ, Cai C, Ravindra VM, Gamble P, Yarbrough CK, Dacey RG, Dowling JL, Zipfel GJ, Wright NM, Santiago P, Robinson CG (2015) Simpson Grade I-III resection of spinal atypical (World Health Organization Grade II) meningiomas is associated with symptom resolution and low recurrence. Neurosurgery 76(6):739–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Zham H, Moradi A, Rakhshan A, Zali A, Rahbari A, Raee M, Ashrafi F, Ahadi M, Larijani L, Baikpour M, Khayamzadeh M. (2016). Does histologic subtype influence the post-operative outcome in spinal meningioma? Iran J Cancer Prev 9(2)Google Scholar