TY - JOUR
T1 - Global trends in the utilisation of NOMS framework for spinal metastasis management
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Tobing, Jephtah Furano Lumban
AU - Kow, Elson
AU - Tobing, Singkat Dohar Apul Lumban
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024, Malaysian Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - Introduction: Traditional risk stratification systems based on the clinicopathological criteria have limitations and may not accurately predict outcomes for all patients. The neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) framework aims to optimise treatment outcomes and improve patient care. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the NOMS framework within the context of spinal metastasis. Materials and Methods: The study rigorously followed the guidelines set by PRISMA. We conducted an extensive search and be as transparent as possible across well-regarded databases such as PubMed and Euro PMC. The primary outcome measure focused on examining the feasibility of implementing the NOMS framework for patients with spinal metastasis in real-world clinical settings, and this measure was predefined and justified. Results: This systematic review included three studies involving 300 participants with spinal metastases at the cervicothoracic junction. The studies examined surgical interventions like decompression, fusion and corpectomy within the NOMS framework. Across the studies, the NOMS approach is consistently associated with adverse outcomes, including complication rates, surgical revisions, hardware complications, deformities, tumour recurrence and variable survival rates. It is also linked to hospital stays, ICU durations and specific discharge statuses. Another study focused on spinal metastasis patients undergoing endoscopic surgery, highlighting the NOMS framework's connection to recurrence rates, performance metrics, neurological status, pain management, functional recovery and quality of life. In addition, other studies explored navigated instrumentation, with a primary focus on screw placement accuracy. All three studies demonstrated methodological rigor by reporting adequate allocation concealment. Conclusion: NOMS framework consistently associates with adverse spinal metastasis surgery outcomes.
AB - Introduction: Traditional risk stratification systems based on the clinicopathological criteria have limitations and may not accurately predict outcomes for all patients. The neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) framework aims to optimise treatment outcomes and improve patient care. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the NOMS framework within the context of spinal metastasis. Materials and Methods: The study rigorously followed the guidelines set by PRISMA. We conducted an extensive search and be as transparent as possible across well-regarded databases such as PubMed and Euro PMC. The primary outcome measure focused on examining the feasibility of implementing the NOMS framework for patients with spinal metastasis in real-world clinical settings, and this measure was predefined and justified. Results: This systematic review included three studies involving 300 participants with spinal metastases at the cervicothoracic junction. The studies examined surgical interventions like decompression, fusion and corpectomy within the NOMS framework. Across the studies, the NOMS approach is consistently associated with adverse outcomes, including complication rates, surgical revisions, hardware complications, deformities, tumour recurrence and variable survival rates. It is also linked to hospital stays, ICU durations and specific discharge statuses. Another study focused on spinal metastasis patients undergoing endoscopic surgery, highlighting the NOMS framework's connection to recurrence rates, performance metrics, neurological status, pain management, functional recovery and quality of life. In addition, other studies explored navigated instrumentation, with a primary focus on screw placement accuracy. All three studies demonstrated methodological rigor by reporting adequate allocation concealment. Conclusion: NOMS framework consistently associates with adverse spinal metastasis surgery outcomes.
KW - management
KW - NOMS framework
KW - outcomes
KW - spinal metastasis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85205447343&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review article
C2 - 39352165
AN - SCOPUS:85205447343
SN - 0300-5283
VL - 79
SP - 608
EP - 614
JO - Medical Journal of Malaysia
JF - Medical Journal of Malaysia
IS - 5
ER -