↓ Skip to main content

Surgeon’s perception of margins in spinal en bloc resection surgeries: how reliable is it?

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Surgeon’s perception of margins in spinal en bloc resection surgeries: how reliable is it?
Published in
European Spine Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00586-017-4967-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ran Lador, Alessandro Gasbarrini, Marco Gambarotti, Stefano Bandiera, Riccardo Ghermandi, Stefano Boriani

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 19%
Professor 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,591,506
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,504
of 4,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,879
of 420,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#37
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,670 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.