» Articles » PMID: 29516306

Spinal Meningiomas Prognostic Evaluation Score (SPES): Predicting the Neurological Outcomes in Spinal Meningioma Surgery

Overview
Journal Neurosurg Rev
Specialty Neurosurgery
Date 2018 Mar 9
PMID 29516306
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Clinical, molecular, and genetic features of spinal meningiomas.

Deska-Gauthier D, Hachem L, Wang J, Landry A, Yefet L, Gui C Neurooncol Adv. 2024; 6(Suppl 3):iii73-iii82.

PMID: 39430393 PMC: 11485713. DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdae123.


Clinical diagnosis model of spinal meningiomas based on the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database.

Jiang Y, Chen P, Liang J, Long X, Cai J, Zhang Y Front Surg. 2023; 10:1008605.

PMID: 36865629 PMC: 9971498. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1008605.


Hemilaminectomy for the removal of the spinal tumors: An analysis of 901 patients.

Liao D, Li D, Wang R, Xu J, Chen H Front Neurol. 2023; 13:1094073.

PMID: 36712439 PMC: 9874286. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1094073.


Functional Outcome in Spinal Meningioma Surgery and Use of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring.

Jesse C, Abut P, Wermelinger J, Raabe A, Schar R, Seidel K Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(16).

PMID: 36010979 PMC: 9406403. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14163989.


Current knowledge on spinal meningiomas: a systematic review protocol.

El-Hajj V, Pettersson Segerlind J, Burstrom G, Edstrom E, Elmi-Terander A BMJ Open. 2022; 12(6):e061614.

PMID: 35738657 PMC: 9226977. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061614.


References
1.
King A, Sharr M, Gullan R, Bartlett J . Spinal meningiomas: a 20-year review. Br J Neurosurg. 1999; 12(6):521-6. DOI: 10.1080/02688699844367. View

2.
Klekamp J, Samii M . Surgical results for spinal meningiomas. Surg Neurol. 2000; 52(6):552-62. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-3019(99)00153-6. View

3.
Gezen F, Kahraman S, Canakci Z, Beduk A . Review of 36 cases of spinal cord meningioma. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(6):727-31. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200003150-00013. View

4.
Cohen-Gadol A, Zikel O, Koch C, Scheithauer B, Krauss W . Spinal meningiomas in patients younger than 50 years of age: a 21-year experience. J Neurosurg. 2003; 98(3 Suppl):258-63. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2003.98.3.0258. View

5.
Pena M, Galasko C, Barrie J . Delay in diagnosis of intradural spinal tumors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992; 17(9):1110-6. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199209000-00017. View