Surgeon’s perception of margins in spinal en bloc resection surgeries: how reliable is it?
Purpose and Background
En bloc resections aim at surgically removing a tumor in a single, intact piece, fully encased by a continuous shell of healthy tissue—the “margin”. Intraoperative continuous assessment of the plane of resection regarding the tumor’s margins is paramount. The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of experienced spinal tumor surgeons’ perception of these margins.
A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data of 1681 patients affected by spine tumors of whom 217 en bloc resections was performed. Surgeons’ intraoperative assessment was compared to the histopathological assessment.
Most were primary—163 (42 benign and 121 malignant), metastases occurred in 54 cases. ‘Wide’ margins were obtained in 126 cases; ‘marginal’ in 60 cases, and ‘intralesional’ in 31 cases. Surgeons assessed clear margins in 109 cases and contaminated in 108 cases. When considering marginal margins as a contaminated resection, the surgeon’s assessment of clear resection had a sensitivity of 76.89%, specificity of 86.81%, PPV and NPV (positive and negative predictive values) were 88.99 and 73.15%, respectively. Inter-observer agreement was 0.62. When considering marginal margins as a clear resection, the surgeon’s assessment of clear resection had a sensitivity of 64.5%, specificity of 100%, PPV and NPV were 100 and 0%, respectively. Inter-observer agreement was 0.29.
Surgeons are fairly accurate in their intraoperative assessment of clear margins achieved; however, this accuracy is not perfect and exploring ways to improve this intraoperative assessment is of major importance possibly impacting the outcome of the treatment.
KeywordsMargins Spine tumors En bloc resection Intraoperative assessment Recurrence
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no financial disclosures that relate to this paper by any of the attributing authors. There was no material support related to this study.
No funding or Grant was received for this study, and no NIH Grant was applied for or received.
- 1.Enneking WF (1983) Musculoskeletal tumor surgery, vol 1. Churchill LivingstoneGoogle Scholar
- 2.Enneking WF (1983) Musculoskeletal tumor surgery. Churchil Livingstone Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 3.Stener B (1989) Complete removal of vertebrae for extirpation of tumors: a 20-year experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 245:72–82Google Scholar
- 4.Roy-Camille R, Mazel CH, Saillant G, Lapresle PH (1990) Treatment of malignant tumors of the spine with posterior instrumentation. Tumors of the spine: diagnosis and clinical management Saunders, Philadelphia:473–487Google Scholar
- 8.Boriani S, Schwab J, Bandiera S, Colangeli S, Ghermandi R, Gasbarrini A (2014) Sub-total and total vertebrectomy for tumours. In: European Surgical Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Springer, pp 661–675Google Scholar
- 18.Boriani S, Gasbarrini A, Bandiera S, Ghermandi R, Lador R (2016) Predictors for surgical complications of en bloc resections in the spine: review of 220 cases treated by the same team. European Spine Journal:1–10Google Scholar
- 27.Bacci G, Ferrari S, Mercuri M, Bertoni F, Picci P, Manfrini M, Gasbarrini A, Forni C, Cesari M, Campanacci M (1998) Predictive factors for local recurrence in osteosarcoma 540 Patients with extremity tumors followed for minimum 2.5 years after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Orthopaedica 69(3):230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Roy-Camille R, Monpierre H, Mazel Ch SG (1990) Technique de vertebrectomie totale lombaire. Rachis Dorsal et Lombaire Septieme Journees d’Orthopedie de la Pitié Masson, Paris:49–52Google Scholar
- 30.Di Fiore M, Lari S, Boriani S, Fornaro G, Perin S, Malferrari A, Zanoni A (1997) Major vertebral surgery: intra-and postoperative anaesthesia-related problems. La Chirurgia degli organi di movimento 83(1–2):65–72Google Scholar