Spinal metastasis at the cervicothoracic junction from acinic cell carcinoma of the parotid gland: Case report

Background: Acinic cell carcinoma (ACC) accounts for only 1% of all parotid neoplasms. Spinal metastases of these tumor are extremely rare. Case Description: A 21-year-old patient had two prior partial resections of an ACC of the parotid gland followed by radiotherapy. Two years later, the patient presented with a 3-month history of cervicothoracic pain. The cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging revealed a pathological vertebral fracture secondary to metastatic infiltration of the D1 and D2 vertebral bodies contributing to spinal cord compression. The patient underwent a two-staged approach to resect the D1/D2 infiltrated vertebral bodies and to stabilize the cervicothoracic junction. The histopathological diagnosis was consistent with metastatic ACC. The patient subsequently received 10 cycles of adjuvant radiotherapy. Six months later, the patient was neurologically intact and radiographically exhibited adequate fusion without new tumor recurrence. At the telemedicine follow-up 35 months postoperatively, the patient was doing well without axial pain or any neurological symptoms. Conclusion: A 23-year-old patient following circumferential decompression/fusion of a D1/D2 metastatic parotid carcinoma ACC was neurologically symptom free and radiographically stable without evidence of residual/ recurrent tumor.

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.

Surgical outcomes and risk factors for poor outcomes in patients with cervical spine metastasis: a prospective study

Background Few studies have addressed the impact of palliative surgery for cervical spine metastasis on patients’ performance status (PS) and quality of life (QOL). We investigated the surgical outcomes of patients with cervical spine metastasis and the risk factors for a poor outcome with a focus on the PS and QOL. Methods We prospectively analyzed patients with cervical spine metastasis who underwent palliative surgery from 2013 to 2018. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS (ECOGPS) and EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ5D) score were assessed at study enrollment and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Neurological function was evaluated with Frankel grading. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for a poor surgical outcome, defined as no improvement or deterioration after improvement of the ECOGPS or EQ5D score within 3 months. Results Forty-six patients (mean age, 67.5 ± 11.7 years) were enrolled. Twelve postoperative complications occurred in 11 (23.9%) patients. The median ECOGPS improved from PS3 at study enrolment to PS2 at 1 month and PS1 at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The mean EQ5D score improved from 0.085 ± 0.487 at study enrolment to 0.658 ± 0.356 at 1 month and 0.753 ± 0.312 at 3 months. A poor outcome was observed in 18 (39.1%) patients. The univariate analysis showed that variables with a P value of < 0.10 were sex (male), the revised Tokuhashi score, the new Katagiri score, the level of the main lesion, and the Frankel grade at baseline. The multivariate analysis identified the level of the main lesion (cervicothoracic junction) as the significant risk factor (odds ratio, 5.00; P = 0.025). Conclusions Palliative surgery for cervical spine metastasis improved the PS and QOL, but a cervicothoracic junction lesion could be a risk factor for a poor outcome.