Asian Spine J Search


Asian Spine J > Volume 16(5); 2022 > Article
Hong, Chang, Kim, Kang, and Chang: An Updated Review on the Treatment Strategy for Spinal Metastasis from the Spine Surgeon’s Perspective


Spinal metastasis is a common issue causing significant pain and disability in cancer patients. A multidisciplinary approach consisting of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical treatment is used for treating patients with metastatic spinal tumors. Due to recent advancements in medical and radiation oncology, like tumor genetics and stereotactic radiotherapy, this treatment strategy would change inevitably. Therefore, the decision-making systems developed for assisting physicians and surgeons to choose the most appropriate treatment for each patient with spinal metastasis need to evolve. In this review, the recent developments, validations, and modifications of these systems, as well as suggestions for future systems have been discussed. Recently, separation surgery combined with stereotactic radiotherapy (hybrid therapy) has gained popularity. Additionally, the evidence for hybrid therapy presented in the literature has been reviewed.


Spinal metastasis is a common problem resulting in adverse effects on the clinical course of patients with spinal metastasis [1]. The incidence of spinal metastasis has been increasing due to the growing number of cancer patients and an increase in their survival rates [2]. Spinal metastasis affects up to 70% of cancer patients, whereas 10%–20% of cases are symptomatic, causing pain, neurological deficits, and quality-of-life deterioration [3].
Spinal metastasis surgery is predominantly palliative and aims at preserving or improving the quality of life by achieving pain controlling and preserving ambulatory function [4]. A multidisciplinary approach consisting of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical treatment is used for treating metastatic spinal cancers because of variable treatment responses among cancer patients [5]. As a result, several authors established multiple decisionmaking systems for treating metastatic spinal tumors. This could assist physicians and surgeons in determining the most appropriate treatment option for each patient [6]. However, recent advancements in oncology and methodology have demanded a further evolution of these decision-making systems. In the current review, the developments, validations, and modifications in these systems presented in recent studies have been discussed [7].
Growing evidence is available for separation surgery combined with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for treating spinal metastasis. In this study, several techniques and evidence for the efficacy of hybrid therapy for metastatic spinal tumors have been reviewed.

Present and Future of Decision-Making Systems

1. Classification-based prognostic models

Many authors have devised several “classification-based” prognostic models, like the Tomita, Tokuhashi, Bauer, and Katagiri scoring systems, to estimate the survival of patients with metastatic spinal tumors [8-13]. In these scoring systems, a patient’s life expectancy is predicted by the total prognostic score calculated by adding the scores assigned to each prognostic factor. Each decision-making or scoring system has different prognostic factors. However, the factors commonly included in most systems are the histological subtype of primary cancer and the presence of visceral metastasis (Table 1). Spine surgeons and oncologists can use these scoring systems to select patients with a sufficient life expectancy and decide if surgical treatment is needed.
However, in recent studies, these survival prediction systems have shown poor accuracy [14-17]. In a nationwide study done in France, the survival prediction accuracy was 42.8% and 25.6% for the Tokuhashi and Tomita scoring systems, respectively [18]. The inability to reflect prolonged survival due to novel developments in cancer treatments, like molecular targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and hormonal therapies, leads to the occurrence of inaccuracies in these systems.
More recently, the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS), consisting of a modified Bauer score, serum albumin level, and ambulatory status, was introduced in 2015 [19] (Table 2). The authors developed the scoring system using multi-institutional data and validated the system retrospectively [20,21] and prospectively [22,23] as an accurate and reliable prediction tool for spinal metastasis. In a recently published prospective study, the authors reported that the NESMS differentiated patient survival notably better than the traditional scoring systems (Tokuhashi, Tomita, and Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score [SINS]) [24].
Many authors have also utilized novel methodologies, including machine-learning algorithms, to develop decision-making systems. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) conducted a study comparing the estimated survival of 649 patients predicted by classic, nomogram, and boosting algorithms [25]. In their study, the authors suggested that the nomogram was intuitive and accurate. More recently, the SORG created a novel prognostic prediction model for spinal metastasis using a machine-learning algorithm [26], which is referred to as one of the “second-generation models” [27]. Subsequent studies have externally validated these models [28-30].

2. Principle-based systems

Principle-based decision-making systems could provide more specific treatment suggestions for each patient with spinal metastasis based on their oncologic, systemic, and functional status in contrast to prognostic models, which only predict patients’ life expectancy. Additionally, these systems could reflect advancements in systemic, radiation, and surgical treatments, like molecular target therapy, SRS, and separation surgery, better than classificationbased prognostic models (Table 3).
The NOMS framework was first introduced in 2006 as a principle-based decision-making system [31]. In this framework, the neurologic (N) component was assessed using the Bilsky grade [32]. The oncologic (O) component is determined based on the expected response to available treatments, primarily radiotherapy, whereas the mechanical (M) component is determined by assessing the spinal column stability using the SINS. This could guide surgeons in deciding whether to perform surgical stabilization regardless of other components [33]. Finally, the systemic (S) component determines whether the patient can tolerate the suggested treatment. The most appropriate treatment for each spinal metastasis patient is suggested based on these four components, including novel treatment modalities, like SRS and separation surgery [31].
Paton et al. [34] introduced the “LMNOP” system as a modification of the NOMS framework. Two additional components were added: the number and location of metastatic spinal lesions (L) and the response to previous treatment (P). The response to previous systemic therapy or radiotherapy was considered to be an important factor in selecting an appropriate treatment option for each patient. For example, a newly diagnosed cancer patient with symptomatic spinal metastasis (synchronous metastasis), having several residual cancer treatment options, is expected to have longer survival compared to those with spinal metastasis diagnosed during the course of cancer treatment (metachronous metastasis) [35].

3. Current trends and future directions

The prognostic models or decision-making systems for metastatic spinal tumors need to evolve due to recent advancements in cancer genetics and the introduction of novel treatment techniques. The suggestions for future spinal metastasis decision-making systems based on the trends evident in the recent literature are as follows: (1) development and validation using a multi-institutional or multinational database; (2) consideration of tumor genetics; (3) utilization of novel methodologies, like artificial intelligence; and (4) integration of prognostic models and principle-based decision-making systems.
The sample size is crucial for the performance of predictive algorithms and decision-making systems. Studies with a large sample size from a multi-institutional or multinational cohort should be conducted for developing an accurate and reliable prognostic model. Therefore, recently introduced predictive algorithms have been developed and validated using multi-institutional databases [19,25,36]. Additionally, a large database from multicenter and multinational tumor registries should be a prerequisite in developing future prognostic models for spinal metastasis.
The evolution of biological treatments, like targeted molecular therapy and immunotherapy, has brought a paradigm shift in cancer treatment. Determining the genetic subtypes of primary malignancy provides a guide for these biological treatments. Hence, its importance has been increasing [37]. Examples of target mutations include epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in nonsmall cell lung cancer, v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 in melanoma, and hormonal receptors in breast and prostate cancers. Recently, Kim et al. [38] discovered that the addition of EGFR mutation positivity to the NESMS system improves its discrimination ability. Their results emphasize the importance of genetic profiles while establishing treatment strategies for spinal metastasis.
Novel computational methodologies are being utilized for developing prognostic models for metastatic spinal tumors. Traditionally, scoring systems have been created based on regression analysis (logistic or proportional hazard). However, the SORG used multiple machinelearning algorithms, like gradient boosting, decision trees, random forests, and neural networks, for developing their prognostic models [25,39]. More recently, Karhade et al. [36] developed and introduced predictive algorithms for 6-week mortality in patients with spinal metastasis using five different machine-learning algorithms. These algorithms could assist surgeons in identifying patients for whom surgery could do more harm than good [36]. These evolving computational methodologies would be extensively utilized in predicting the prognosis of spinal metastatic tumors.
Finally, classification- and principle-based systems should be integrated into future decision-making systems. Classification-based systems or prognostic models, estimate the patient’s remaining survival, whereas principlebased systems estimate the most appropriate treatment option based on these survival estimations. Generally, two separate systems are used by oncologists and spine surgeons while choosing an appropriate decision-making process for patients with spinal metastasis. Therefore, novel decision-making systems should combine these two systems and estimate the remaining survival and the most appropriate management option, simultaneously.

Radiotherapy for Spinal Metastasis

1. Stereotactic radiosurgery bringing a paradigm shift

Stereotactic radiotherapy is effective in local tumor control with relatively low complication rates in patients with spinal metastasis [7]. In the treatment of spinal metastasis, SRS has become a game-changer because of recent technical improvements, like radiation delivery systems (imageguided, intensity-modulated) and software [40]. Previous studies have revealed that SRS locally controls spinal metastatic tumors for an extended period, which is not influenced by the tumor histology or radiosensitivity of primary cancer [41]. The effectiveness of SRS, independent of tumor histology, has expanded the role of radiotherapy in managing patients with spinal metastases.
The clinical practice of surgeons treating patients with spinal metastases has been reshaped by SRS by reducing the invasiveness of surgical treatment. For example, in single metastatic lesions not accompanied by spinal cord compression, SRS could be applied as a definitive treatment [42]. Curative surgical procedures with high complication rates, like total en-bloc spondylectomy (TES), have been replaced by SRS, which demonstrated a local control rate of 84%–88% in single metastatic lesions [43,44]. In patients with high-grade metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), the effectiveness of adjuvant SRS reduces the need for aggressive debulking surgery and makes separation surgery, in which tumor resection is limited to decompressing the spinal cord.

2. Vertebral compression fracture following stereotactic radiosurgery

An increased risk of vertebral compression fractures (VCF) after radiotherapy is a pitfall of SRS. VCF is reported after SRS in up to 36% of patients, compared to 5% after conventional radiotherapy [45]. VCF is dosedependent and occurs more frequently when over 20 Gy per fraction of radiation dose is given to patients having risk factors [46]. The risk factors for VCF after SRS are as follows: (1) older age, (2) lytic lesions, and (3) spinal malalignment. In patients with these risk factors, a radiation dose of less than 16–18 Gy per fraction is recommended [47]. Additionally, preventive stabilization surgery could be considered before performing SRS. SINS could be applied to assess the mechanical instability of the metastatic lesion and predict further vertebral collapse after SRS. This could assist in deciding whether to perform surgical stabilization before SRS or not [33,48].

3. The interval between surgery and radiotherapy

In the literature, controversy exists on the adequate timing of adjuvant radiotherapy following surgical treatment. This could be associated with wound complications. Based on recent systemic reviews and expert opinions, it is recommended to keep an interval of 2 weeks (minimum of 7 days) between surgery and radiotherapy [49,50]. A few authors believe that SRS could shorten the interval compared to conventional radiotherapy. In a previous study, Versteeg et al. [51] reported that no increase in wound complications was seen at 90 days after surgery, despite administering SRS within 24 hours of surgery. The findings of previous studies suggest that SRS was associated with fewer wound complications than conventional radiotherapy when administered at a similar time interval between surgeries [52-54]. However, due to the lack of highlevel evidence, the extent to which the interval between surgery and adjuvant SRS could be reduced remains debatable. It should also be noted that minimally invasive surgical techniques, discussed later in this review, could reduce the interval between surgery and radiotherapy.

Surgery for Spinal Metastasis

1. Surgical indications

The purpose of surgical treatment for patients with metastatic spinal tumors is pain relief and improving neurological deficits through nerve decompression and stabilization. Surgical indications for spinal metastasis generally include uncontrolled pain and neurological deficits, like motor weakness in the extremities [55]. As suggested by the decision-making systems, radioresistant tumors with high-grade epidural spinal cord compression are a typical indication for surgical treatment [31,34].
Mechanical instability is considered an independent indication for stabilization, as suggested in the NOMS and LMNOP systems [31,34]. SINS is an independent tool developed to guide surgeons in determining the need for surgical stabilization in each patient based on clinical and radiological findings [56] (Table 4). A score of ≥13 is evidence of spinal instability warranting surgical stabilization. For patients with impending instability (intermediate SINS score of 7–12), the decision of performing surgical stabilization is often difficult. Lenschow et al. [57] reviewed 331 spinal metastasis patients with intermediate SINS and found no significant differences in neurological outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented patients. However, an increase in surgical complications was noted in the instrumented group [57]. Kim et al. [58] suggested that surgical stabilization should be performed in patients having >50% vertebral body collapse with intermediate SINS.
Estimated life expectancy is considered the most important deciding factor in performing surgery for metastatic spinal tumors. Based on the findings of previous studies, more than 3 months of estimated survival is a prerequisite for proceeding with surgical treatment [59,60]. Several prognostic models have been utilized for predicting the survival period of patients with spinal metastases. Additionally, the performance status of the patient should be good enough to have sufficient tolerance for the surgical treatment. Surgical treatment for spinal metastasis can be performed on patients with any previously mentioned surgical indications (e.g., mechanical instability or MESCC) on meeting these conditions.

2. Separation surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery (hybrid therapy)

As mentioned previously, the improved local control ability of SRS, regardless of tumor histology, further reduces the need for invasive surgical procedures in patients with spinal metastases [61] (Fig. 1). The role of decompressive surgery in MESCC can be refined to secure the spinal cord in the era of SRS [62]. “Separation surgery” is defined as a surgical procedure in which the tumor resection is limited to decompressing the spinal cord and creating a gap between the spinal cord and the tumor to provide a safe target for SRS [63]. Circumferential decompression (360°) was performed to ensure a complete re-expansion of the dural sac with at least a 2–3 mm gap between the tumor and spinal cord. Among several surgical approaches, the posterolateral transpedicular approach described by Bilsky et al. [64] is a safe, effective, and versatile method for circumferential spinal cord decompression.
In separation surgery, ventral decompression is the most challenging and crucial surgical step along with intraoperative confirmation of sufficient decompression. In previous studies, sufficient ventral decompression has been associated with improved long-term local control [65]. For adequate ventral decompression, the removal of 20% of the posterior vertebral body after posterior longitudinal ligament resection is generally required [63]. Intraoperative confirmation of ventral decompression can be performed with a stereotactic navigation system or ultrasonography [66] (Fig. 2).
Interdisciplinary decision-making systems, like the NOMS framework, include separation surgery as the treatment of choice for patients with high-grade spinal cord compression of radioresistant tumors when combined with SRS [31]. Additionally, several previous studies have reported favorable outcomes of separation surgery followed by SRS (hybrid therapy) [67-69]. A recent metaanalysis by Kang et al. [70] reported that the pooled local progression rate at 1 year following hybrid therapy was 10.2%. Additionally, their study revealed that factors like low doses per fraction, previous radiotherapy, and colorectal cancer were significantly associated with local tumor progression [70]. Favorable results of hybrid therapy limit spine surgeons from performing en-bloc resections in patients with spinal metastasis carrying significant surgical morbidity.

3. Minimally invasive or minimal-access surgery

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or minimal-access surgery for spinal metastasis could reduce surgical morbidities and facilitate quick recovery after surgery. This would allow cancer patients to restart their oncological treatment promptly. Previous studies have introduced tubular retractor systems and thoracoscopic assistance for anterior surgeries [71,72], minimally invasive approaches for decompression, and corpectomy for posterior surgeries [73,74]. Other MIS techniques, like percutaneous pedicle screw fixations and image-guided stereotactic navigation systems, are also effective treatment modalities in spinal metastasis surgery [68,75].
In previous studies, it was revealed that compared to open surgery, MIS displays equivalent surgical outcomes and has fewer complications at the surgical site [76-80]. Additionally, a recent systematic review comprising of 26 studies summarized that MIS could potentially reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), hospital stay, and blood loss in patients with spinal metastasis without decreasing instrument accuracy and overall patient outcomes [81].

4. Role of curative surgery (en-bloc resection)

Surgical treatment for spinal metastasis is performed for palliative purposes and the role of curative tumor resection, including TES, is limited. En-bloc resection of the metastatic spinal tumor should only be considered in isolated metastatic lesions of slow-growing malignancy, with an expected survival of more than 2 years and an acceptable performance status because of the high surgical morbidity [82]. En-bloc resection for spinal metastasis could also be considered in conditions where SRS is not available [83].
Previous studies have reported improved survival and function following spinal metastasectomy [84-86]. Recently, Kato et al. [87] reported medium-to-long-term clinical outcomes of spinal metastasis, in which the 3-year and 5-year survival rates for 124 patients were 70% and 60%, respectively. Contrastingly, some authors recently reported that spinal metastasectomy, including TES, for spinal metastasis did not affect oncological outcomes [88]. These conflicting results and recent reports of improved efficacy of novel radiotherapies suggest that a more careful patient selection through a multidisciplinary team approach is required for determining whether curative surgery should be performed for spinal metastasis.

5. Prevention of perioperative complications

The reported overall complication rate ranges from 10% to 66.7% after surgical treatment for metastatic spinal tumors [89]. Minimizing all possible perioperative complications is crucial in patients with spinal metastasis because it has been reported that 30-day postoperative complications are associated with worse patient survival [90]. In this review, the following common perioperative complications occurring after surgery in metastatic spinal tumors have been discussed: (1) SSI, (2) failure of instrumentation, and (3) intraoperative bleeding.
SSI is experienced by up to 30% of patients treated surgically for spinal metastasis patients. SSI is more prevalent than in patients undergoing other spinal surgeries [89]. Moreover, SSI is the most common reason for reoperation after surgical treatment of metastatic spinal tumors [91,92]. Following spinal metastasis surgery, the proposed risk factors for SSI are poor nutrition, diabetes mellitus, smoking, obesity, and adjuvant therapies, like radiotherapy and systemic treatment [93-95]. Therefore, to minimize the incidence of SSI, all possible preventive measures (e.g., nutritional therapy and an adequate interval between surgery and radiotherapy) should be administered promptly by a multidisciplinary team. Recently, a web-based calculator that can predict the occurrence of SSI and the associated risk of reoperation has been developed to help minimize SSI [96].
Instrumentation failure is the second reason for reoperation after surgery for metastatic spinal tumors [91]. The risk factors suggested for instrumentation failure are longlevel surgery, combined chest wall resection, and higher preoperative SINS [97-99]. However, it is controversial if adjuvant radiotherapy should be considered to be a risk factor for instrumentation failure [100]. Prolonged survival of patients with spinal metastasis is also associated with increased instrumentation failures [101]. Currently, limited evidence is available on the role of additional fusion procedures during surgical stabilization in reducing instrumentation failure [93,102,103]. This study suggests that the two types of instrumentation failure, early and late, should be distinguished in future studies because the mechanisms of these two failures are different [104]. Early failure occurs due to insufficient fixation strength or stability of the construct, whereas late failure occurs due to deformity progression due to tumor progression or lack of fusion.
Intraoperative bleeding can often be extensive in spinal metastasis surgery, leading to serious cardiovascular or cerebral complications [105]. Therefore, before surgery for a metastatic spinal tumor, preoperative embolization has been recommended for hypervascular tumors, like kidney and thyroid cancers. A recent meta-analysis reported significantly less intraoperative blood loss, fewer blood transfusions, and shorter surgical duration in the embolization group for hypervascular tumors [106]. However, in this analysis, scanty evidence was available to support the routine administration of preoperative embolization for nonhypervascular spinal metastases [106]. Nevertheless, when aggressive debulking surgery, like piecemeal corpectomy, is planned, preoperative embolization can help in reducing intraoperative bleeding [107]. To maintain the effect of preoperative embolization and avoid increased bleeding due to reperfusion, the delay between embolization and surgery should be minimized and not exceed 24 hours [108].


The decision-making process for patients with metastatic spinal tumors is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Recent advancements in radiotherapy and surgical techniques have markedly improved clinical outcomes in patients with spinal metastases. Therefore, the ongoing evolution of decision-making systems should also play a crucial role in state-of-art care for metastatic spinal tumors.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


Author Contributions

Conceptualization: SHH, SYC; data curation: SHH, DHK, SYC; formal analysis: HK, DHK; methodology: BSC, SYC; project administration: BSC, HK; visualization: SHH, DHK; writing–original draft: SHH, BSC, HK, SYC; writing–review & editing: SHH, BSC,HK, DHK, SYC.

Fig. 1.
A case of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression treated by hybrid therapy (separation surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery [SRS]). (A, B) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows severe spinal cord compression at T9. (C, D) MRI at postoperative 2 weeks after separation surgery shows a gap created between the spinal cord and residual tumor. (E, F) Following a single-fraction SRS, which was performed 3 weeks after the separation surgery, the residual tumor was completely ablated. (G, H) At postoperative 2 years, there is no evidence of tumor in the follow-up MRI.
Fig. 2.
Adequate ventral decompression confirmed by the stereotactic spinal navigation system during a separation surgery using a transpedicular approach. (A–C) Before ventral decompression, the navigation probe is located on the posterior surface of the vertebral body. (D–F) After ventral decompression is achieved by removing the posterior vertebral body, the navigation probe is located within the vertebral body.
Table 1.
Prognostic factors in decision-making systems
Study Primary tumor Performance status No. of vertebral metastases Bone metastasis Visceral metastasis Previous systemic treatment Other factors
Modified Bauer [9] (1995) O O O
Tomita [10] (2001) O O O
Revised Tokuhashi [11] (2005) O O O O O
Revised Katagiri [14] (2014) O O O O O Brain metastasis, WBC, Hb, platelet, albumin, bilirubin, CRP, LDH
NESMS [21] (2015) O O O O O Serum albumin
SORG [20] (2016) O O O O O Age, WBC, Hb, brain metastasis

WBC, white blood cell; Hb, hemoglobin; CRP, C-reactive protein; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; NESMS, New England Spinal Metastasis Score; SORG, Spine Oncology Research Group.

Table 2.
The New England Spinal Metastasis Score
Components Modified Bauer points NESMS points
Modified Bauer score components
 Primary tumor is not lung 1
 Primary tumor is breast or kidney 1
 Solitary skeletal metastasis 1
 No visceral metastasis 1
Modified Bauer score
 ≤2 0
 ≥3 2
Serum albumin (g/dL)
 <3.5 0
 ≥3.5 1
Ambulatory status
 Non-ambulatory 0
 Intact or impaired 1

NESMS, New England Spinal Metastasis Score.

Table 3.
The NOMS decision framework
Neurologic (N) Oncologic (O) Mechanical (M) Systemic (S) Decision
Low-grade ESCC+no myelopathy Radiosensitive Stable cEBRT
Radiosensitive Unstable Stabilization followed by cEBRT
Radioresistant Stable SRS
Radioresistant Unstable Stabilization followed by SRS
High-grade ESCC±myelopathy Radiosensitive Stable cEBRT
Radiosensitive Unstable Stabilization followed by cEBRT
Radioresistant Stable Able to tolerate surgery Decompression/stabilization followed by SRS
Radioresistant Stable Unable to tolerate surgery cEBRT
Radioresistant Unstable Able to tolerate surgery Decompression/stabilization followed by SRS
Radioresistant Unstable Unable to tolerate surgery Stabilization followed by cEBRT

Adapted from Chang SY, et al. Orthop Surg 2019;11:552-9 [35].

NOMS, neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic; ESCC, epidural spinal cord compression; cEBRT, conventional external beam radiation; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery.

Table 4.
Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score system
SINS component Score
 Junctional (occiput–C2, C7–T2, T11–L1, L5–S1) 3
 Mobile spine (C3–C6, L2–L4) 2
 Semi rigid (T3–T10) 1
 Rigid (S2–S5) 0
 Yes 3
 Occasional pain but not mechanical 1
 Pain-free lesion 0
Bone lesion
 Lytic 2
 Mixed (lytic/blastic) 1
 Blastic 0
Radiographic spinal alignment
 Subluxation/translation present 4
 De novo deformity (kyphosis/scoliosis) 2
 Normal alignment 0
Vertebral body collapse
 >50% collapse 3
 <50% collapse 2
 No collapse with >50% body involved 1
 None of the above 0
Posterolateral involvement of spinal elementsb)
 Bilateral 3
 Unilateral 1
 None of the above 0

SINS, Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score.

a) Pain improvement with recumbency and/or pain with movement/loading of spine.

b) Facet, pedicle, or costovertebral joint fracture or replacement with tumor.


1. White AP, Kwon BK, Lindskog DM, Friedlaender GE, Grauer JN. Metastatic disease of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006;14:587–98.
crossref pmid
2. Laufer I, Sciubba DM, Madera M, et al. Surgical management of metastatic spinal tumors. Cancer Control 2012;19:122–8.
crossref pmid pdf
3. Perrin RG, Laxton AW. Metastatic spine disease: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and evaluation of patients. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2004;15:365–73.
crossref pmid
4. Nathan SS, Healey JH, Mellano D, et al. Survival in patients operated on for pathologic fracture: implications for end-of-life orthopedic care. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6072–82.
crossref pmid
5. Curtin M, Piggott RP, Murphy EP, et al. Spinal metastatic disease: a review of the role of the multidisciplinary team. Orthop Surg 2017;9:145–51.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
6. Ahmed AK, Goodwin CR, Heravi A, et al. Predicting survival for metastatic spine disease: a comparison of nine scoring systems. Spine J 2018;18:1804–14.
crossref pmid
7. Barzilai O, Fisher CG, Bilsky MH. State of the art treatment of spinal metastatic disease. Neurosurgery 2018;82:757–69.
crossref pmid pdf
8. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:298–306.
crossref pmid
9. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2186–91.
crossref pmid
10. Bauer HC, Wedin R. Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases: prognostication in 241 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1995;66:143–6.
crossref pmid
11. van der Linden YM, Dijkstra SP, Vonk EJ, Marijnen CA, Leer JW, Dutch Bone Metastasis Study Group. Prediction of survival in patients with metastases in the spinal column: results based on a randomized trial of radiotherapy. Cancer 2005;103:320–8.
crossref pmid
12. Bartels RH, Feuth T, van der Maazen R, et al. Development of a model with which to predict the life expectancy of patients with spinal epidural metastasis. Cancer 2007;110:2042–9.
crossref pmid
13. Katagiri H, Okada R, Takagi T, et al. New prognostic factors and scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis. Cancer Med 2014;3:1359–67.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
14. Hessler C, Vettorazzi E, Madert J, Bokemeyer C, Panse J. Actual and predicted survival time of patients with spinal metastases of lung cancer: evaluation of the robustness of the Tokuhashi score. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:983–9.
15. Zoccali C, Skoch J, Walter CM, Torabi M, Borgstrom M, Baaj AA. The Tokuhashi score: effectiveness and pitfalls. Eur Spine J 2016;25:673–8.
crossref pmid pdf
16. Nater A, Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, et al. Predictive factors of survival in a surgical series of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and complete external validation of 8 multivariate models of survival in a prospective North American multicenter study. Cancer 2018;124:3536–50.
crossref pmid pdf
17. Nakajima H, Watanabe S, Honjoh K, et al. Prognosis after palliative surgery for patients with spinal metastasis: comparison of predicted and actual survival. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:3868.
crossref pmid pmc
18. Tabourel G, Terrier LM, Dubory A, et al. Are spine metastasis survival scoring systems outdated and do they underestimate life expectancy?: caution in surgical recommendation guidance. J Neurosurg Spine 2021;35:527–34.
crossref pmid
19. Ghori AK, Leonard DA, Schoenfeld AJ, et al. Modeling 1-year survival after surgery on the metastatic spine. Spine J 2015;15:2345–50.
crossref pmid
20. Schoenfeld AJ, Le HV, Marjoua Y, et al. Assessing the utility of a clinical prediction score regarding 30-day morbidity and mortality following metastatic spinal surgery: the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS). Spine J 2016;16:482–90.
crossref pmid
21. Shi DD, Chen YH, Lam TC, et al. Assessing the utility of a prognostication model to predict 1-year mortality in patients undergoing radiation therapy for spinal metastases. Spine J 2018;18:935–40.
crossref pmid
22. Schoenfeld AJ, Blucher JA, Barton LB, et al. Design of the prospective observational study of spinal metastasis treatment (POST). Spine J 2020;20:572–9.
crossref pmid
23. Schoenfeld AJ, Ferrone ML, Schwab JH, et al. Prospective validation of a clinical prediction score for survival in patients with spinal metastases: the New England Spinal Metastasis Score. Spine J 2021;21:28–36.
crossref pmid
24. Schoenfeld AJ, Ferrone ML, Blucher JA, et al. Prospective comparison of the accuracy of the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS) to legacy scoring systems in prognosticating outcomes following treatment of spinal metastases. Spine J 2022;22:39–48.
crossref pmid
25. Paulino Pereira NR, Janssen SJ, van Dijk E, et al. Development of a prognostic survival algorithm for patients with metastatic spine disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98:1767–76.
crossref pmid
26. Karhade AV, Thio QC, Ogink PT, et al. Predicting 90-day and 1-year mortality in spinal metastatic disease: development and internal validation. Neurosurgery 2019;85:E671–81.
crossref pmid
27. Pennington Z, Ehresman J, Cottrill E, et al. To operate, or not to operate?: narrative review of the role of survival predictors in patient selection for operative management of patients with metastatic spine disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2020;34:135–49.
crossref pmid
28. Karhade AV, Ahmed AK, Pennington Z, et al. External validation of the SORG 90-day and 1-year machine learning algorithms for survival in spinal metastatic disease. Spine J 2020;20:14–21.
crossref pmid
29. Bongers ME, Karhade AV, Villavieja J, et al. Does the SORG algorithm generalize to a contemporary cohort of patients with spinal metastases on external validation? Spine J 2020;20:1646–52.
crossref pmid
30. Shah AA, Karhade AV, Park HY, et al. Updated external validation of the SORG machine learning algorithms for prediction of ninety-day and one-year mortality after surgery for spinal metastasis. Spine J 2021;21:1679–86.
crossref pmid
31. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, et al. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist 2013;18:744–51.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
32. Bilsky M, Smith M. Surgical approach to epidural spinal cord compression. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2006;20:1307–17.
crossref pmid
33. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, et al. A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: an evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:E1221–9.
34. Paton GR, Frangou E, Fourney DR. Contemporary treatment strategy for spinal metastasis: the “LMNOP” system. Can J Neurol Sci 2011;38:396–403.
crossref pmid
35. Chang SY, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kim H. Remaining systemic treatment options: a valuable predictor of survival and functional outcomes after surgical treatment for spinal metastasis. Orthop Surg 2019;11:552–9.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
36. Karhade AV, Fenn B, Groot OQ, et al. Development and external validation of predictive algorithms for 6-week mortality in spinal metastasis using 4,304 patients from 5 institutions. Spine J 2022 Jul 14 [Epub].
37. Choi D, Bilsky M, Fehlings M, Fisher C, Gokaslan Z. Spine oncology: metastatic spine tumors. Neurosurgery 2017;80(3S): S131–7.
crossref pmid
38. Kim H, Chang SY, Son J, Mok S, Park SC, Chang BS. The effect of adding biological factors to the decisionmaking process for spinal metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Med 2021;10:1119.
crossref pmid pmc
39. Karhade AV, Shin JH, Schwab JH. Prognostic models for spinal metastatic disease: evolution of methodologies, limitations, and future opportunities. Ann Transl Med 2019;7:219.
crossref pmid pmc
40. Alongi F, Arcangeli S, Filippi AR, Ricardi U, Scorsetti M. Review and uses of stereotactic body radiation therapy for oligometastases. Oncologist 2012;17:1100–7.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
41. Yamada Y, Katsoulakis E, Laufer I, et al. The impact of histology and delivered dose on local control of spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurg Focus 2017;42:E6.
crossref pmid pmc
42. Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Burch S. Shifting paradigms in the treatment of metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34(22 Suppl): S101–7.
crossref pmid
43. Garg AK, Shiu AS, Yang J, et al. Phase 1/2 trial of single-session stereotactic body radiotherapy for previously unirradiated spinal metastases. Cancer 2012;118:5069–77.
crossref pmid pmc
44. Ho JC, Tang C, Deegan BJ, et al. The use of spine stereotactic radiosurgery for oligometastatic disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2016;25:239–47.
crossref pmid
45. Sahgal A, Whyne CM, Ma L, Larson DA, Fehlings MG. Vertebral compression fracture after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:e310–20.
crossref pmid
46. Sahgal A, Atenafu EG, Chao S, et al. Vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: a multi-institutional analysis with a focus on radiation dose and the spinal instability neoplastic score. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3426–31.
crossref pmid pmc
47. Boyce-Fappiano D, Elibe E, Schultz L, et al. Analysis of the factors contributing to vertebral compression fractures after spine stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;97:236–45.
crossref pmid
48. Chang SY, Ha JH, Seo SG, Chang BS, Lee CK, Kim H. Prognosis of single spinal metastatic tumors: predictive value of the spinal instability neoplastic score system for spinal adverse events. Asian Spine J 2018;12:919–26.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
49. Kumar N, Madhu S, Bohra H, et al. Is there an optimal timing between radiotherapy and surgery to reduce wound complications in metastatic spine disease?: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2020;29:3080–115.
crossref pmid pdf
50. Lee RS, Batke J, Weir L, Dea N, Fisher CG. Timing of surgery and radiotherapy in the management of metastatic spine disease: expert opinion. J Spine Surg 2018;4:368–73.
crossref pmid pmc
51. Versteeg AL, van der Velden JM, Hes J, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for unstable spinal metastases; a stage I/IIa study according to the IDEAL framework. Front Oncol 2018;8:626.
crossref pmid pmc
52. Keam J, Bilsky MH, Laufer I, et al. No association between excessive wound complications and preoperative high-dose, hypofractionated, image-guided radiation therapy for spine metastasis. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;20:411–20.
crossref pmid
53. Moulding HD, Elder JB, Lis E, et al. Local disease control after decompressive surgery and adjuvant high-dose single-fraction radiosurgery for spine metastases. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:87–93.
crossref pmid
54. Redmond KJ, Sciubba D, Khan M, et al. A phase 2 study of post-operative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for solid tumor spine metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020;106:261–8.
crossref pmid
55. Laufer I, Zuckerman SL, Bird JE, et al. Predicting neurologic recovery after surgery in patients with deficits secondary to MESCC: systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41(Suppl 20): S224–30.
pmid pmc
56. Lee CH, Hong JT, Lee SH, et al. Is the spinal instability neoplastic score accurate and reliable in predicting vertebral compression fractures for spinal metastasis?: a systematic review and qualitative analysis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2021;64:4–12.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
57. Lenschow M, Lenz M, von Spreckelsen N, et al. Impact of spinal instrumentation on neurological outcome in patients with intermediate Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS). Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:2193.
crossref pmid pmc
58. Kim YH, Kim J, Chang SY, Kim H, Chang BS. Treatment strategy for impending instability in spinal metastases. Clin Orthop Surg 2020;12:337–42.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
59. White BD, Stirling AJ, Paterson E, Asquith-Coe K, Melder A, Guideline Development Group. Diagnosis and management of patients at risk of or with metastatic spinal cord compression: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a2538.
crossref pmid
60. Choi D, Crockard A, Bunger C, et al. Review of metastatic spine tumour classification and indications for surgery: the consensus statement of the Global Spine Tumour Study Group. Eur Spine J 2010;19:215–22.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
61. Conti A, Acker G, Kluge A, et al. Decision making in patients with metastatic spine. the role of minimally invasive treatment modalities. Front Oncol 2019;9:915.
crossref pmid pmc
62. Orenday-Barraza JM, Cavagnaro MJ, Avila MJ, et al. 10-Year trends in the surgical management of patients with spinal metastases: a scoping review. World Neurosurg 2022;157:170–86.
crossref pmid
63. Di Perna G, Cofano F, Mantovani C, et al. Separation surgery for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a qualitative review. J Bone Oncol 2020;25:100320.
crossref pmid pmc
64. Bilsky MH, Boland P, Lis E, Raizer JJ, Healey JH. Single-stage posterolateral transpedicle approach for spondylectomy, epidural decompression, and circumferential fusion of spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2240–50.
crossref pmid
65. Pennington Z, Pairojboriboon S, Chen X, et al. Utility of expanded anterior column resection versus decompression-alone for local control in the management of carcinomatous vertebral column metastases undergoing adjuvant stereotactic radiotherapy. Spine J 2022;22:835–46.
crossref pmid
66. Kelly PD, Zuckerman SL, Yamada Y, et al. Image guidance in spine tumor surgery. Neurosurg Rev 2020;43:1007–17.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
67. Hu JX, Gong YN, Jiang XD, et al. Local tumor control for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression following separation surgery with adjuvant CyberKnife stereotactic radiotherapy or image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy. World Neurosurg 2020;141:e76–85.
crossref pmid
68. Nasser R, Nakhla J, Echt M, et al. Minimally invasive separation surgery with intraoperative stereotactic guidance: a feasibility study. World Neurosurg 2018;109:68–76.
crossref pmid
69. Laufer I, Iorgulescu JB, Chapman T, et al. Local disease control for spinal metastases following “separation surgery” and adjuvant hypofractionated or high-dose single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: outcome analysis in 186 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:207–14.
crossref pmid pmc
70. Kang DH, Chang BS, Kim H, Hong SH, Chang SY. Separation surgery followed by stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a systematic review and meta-analysis for local progression rate. J Bone Oncol 2022;36:100450.
crossref pmid pmc
71. Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, Cheng CC. Minimal access spinal surgery (MASS) in treating thoracic spine metastasis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1860–3.
crossref pmid
72. Kan P, Schmidt MH. Minimally invasive thoracoscopic approach for anterior decompression and stabilization of metastatic spine disease. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E8.
73. Saigal R, Wadhwa R, Mummaneni PV, Chou D. Minimally invasive extracavitary transpedicular corpectomy for the management of spinal tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2014;25:305–15.
crossref pmid
74. Donnelly DJ, Abd-El-Barr MM, Lu Y. Minimally invasive muscle sparing posterior-only approach for lumbar circumferential decompression and stabilization to treat spine metastasis: technical report. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1484–90.
crossref pmid
75. Kim CH, Chung CK, Sohn S, Lee S, Park SB. Less invasive palliative surgery for spinal metastases. J Surg Oncol 2013;108:499–503.
crossref pmid
76. Lu VM, Alvi MA, Goyal A, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M. The potential of minimally invasive surgery to treat metastatic spinal disease versus open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2018;112:e859–68.
crossref pmid
77. Yang Z, Yang Y, Zhang Y, et al. Minimal access versus open spinal surgery in treating painful spine metastasis: a systematic review. World J Surg Oncol 2015;13:68.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
78. Spiessberger A, Arvind V, Gruter B, Cho SK. Thoracolumbar corpectomy/spondylectomy for spinal metastasis: a pooled analysis comparing the outcome of seven different surgical approaches. Eur Spine J 2020;29:248–56.
crossref pmid pdf
79. Cui Y, Shi X, Mi C, Wang B, Pan Y, Lin Y. Comparison of minimally invasive tubular surgery with conventional surgery in the treatment of thoracolumbar metastasis. Cancer Manag Res 2021;13:8399–409.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
80. Hinojosa-Gonzalez DE, Roblesgil-Medrano A, Villarreal-Espinosa JB, et al. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for spinal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Spine J 2022;16:583–97.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
81. Flynn SC, Eli IM, Ghogawala Z, Yew AY. Minimally invasive surgery for spinal metastasis: a review. World Neurosurg 2022;159:e32–9.
crossref pmid
82. Kato S, Demura S, Shinmura K, et al. Surgical metastasectomy in the spine: a review article. Oncologist 2021;26:e1833–43.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
83. Barzilai O, Boriani S, Fisher CG, et al. Essential concepts for the management of metastatic spine disease: what the surgeon should know and practice. Global Spine J 2019;9(1 Suppl): 98S–107S.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
84. Kato S, Demura S, Shinmura K, et al. Clinical outcomes and survivals after total en bloc spondylectomy for metastatic leiomyosarcoma in the spine. Eur Spine J 2020;29:3237–44.
crossref pmid pdf
85. Yonezawa N, Murakami H, Demura S, et al. Perioperative complications and prognosis of curative surgical resection for spinal metastases in elderly patients. World Neurosurg 2020;137:e144–51.
crossref pmid
86. Higuchi T, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, et al. Long-term patient survival after the surgical treatment of bone and soft-tissue metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1241–8.
crossref pmid pdf
87. Kato S, Demura S, Murakami H, et al. Medium to long-term clinical outcomes of spinal metastasectomy. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:2852.
crossref pmid pmc
88. Ohashi M, Hirano T, Watanabe K, et al. En Bloc Spondylectomy for spinal metastases: detailed oncological outcomes at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. Asian Spine J 2019;13:296–304.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
89. Igoumenou VG, Mavrogenis AF, Angelini A, et al. Complications of spine surgery for metastasis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2020;30:37–56.
crossref pmid pdf
90. Paulino Pereira NR, Ogink PT, Groot OQ, et al. Complications and reoperations after surgery for 647 patients with spine metastatic disease. Spine J 2019;19:144–56.
crossref pmid
91. Quraishi NA, Rajabian A, Spencer A, et al. Reoperation rates in the surgical treatment of spinal metastases. Spine J 2015;15(3 Suppl): S37–43.
crossref pmid
92. Tarawneh AM, Pasku D, Quraishi NA. Surgical complications and re-operation rates in spinal metastases surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2021;30:2791–9.
crossref pmid pdf
93. Galgano M, Fridley J, Oyelese A, et al. Surgical management of spinal metastases. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2018;18:463–72.
crossref pmid
94. Isogai N, Yagi M, Nishimura S, et al. Risk predictors of perioperative complications for the palliative surgical treatment of spinal metastasis. J Orthop Sci 2021;26:1107–12.
crossref pmid
95. Sebaaly A, Shedid D, Boubez G, et al. Surgical site infection in spinal metastasis: incidence and risk factors. Spine J 2018;18:1382–7.
crossref pmid
96. Hersh AM, Feghali J, Hung B, et al. A web-based calculator for predicting the occurrence of wound complications, wound infection, and unplanned reoperation for wound complications in patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases. World Neurosurg 2021;155:e218–28.
crossref pmid
97. Park SJ, Lee CS, Chang BS, et al. Rod fracture and related factors after total en bloc spondylectomy. Spine J 2019;19:1613–9.
crossref pmid
98. Amankulor NM, Xu R, Iorgulescu JB, et al. The incidence and patterns of hardware failure after separation surgery in patients with spinal metastatic tumors. Spine J 2014;14:1850–9.
crossref pmid
99. Kumar N, Patel R, Tan JH, et al. Symptomatic construct failure after metastatic spine tumor surgery. Asian Spine J 2021;15:481–90.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
100. Wong YC, Chau WW, Kwok KO, Law SW. Incidence and risk factors for implant failure in spinal metastasis surgery. Asian Spine J 2020;14:878–85.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
101. Zaborovskii N, Schlauch A, Ptashnikov D, et al. Hardware failure in spinal tumor surgery: a hallmark of longer survival? Neurospine 2022;19:84–95.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
102. Suvithayasiri S, Santipas B, Wilartratsami S, Ruangchainikom M, Luksanapruksa P. Non-fusion palliative spine surgery without reconstruction is safe and effective in spinal metastasis patients: retrospective study. Sci Rep 2021;11:17486.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
103. Yee TJ, Saadeh YS, Strong MJ, et al. Survival, fusion, and hardware failure after surgery for spinal metastatic disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2021;34:665–72.
crossref pmid
104. Kumar N, Patel R, Tan BW, et al. Asymptomatic construct failure after metastatic spine tumor surgery: a new entity or a continuum with symptomatic failure? Asian Spine J 2021;15:636–49.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
105. Swann MC, Hoes KS, Aoun SG, McDonagh DL. Postoperative complications of spine surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2016;30:103–20.
crossref pmid
106. Gao ZY, Zhang T, Zhang H, Pang CG, Xia Q. Effectiveness of preoperative embolization in patients with spinal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2021;152:e745–57.
crossref pmid
107. Yoo SL, Kim YH, Park HY, et al. Clinical significance of preoperative embolization for non-hypervascular metastatic spine tumors. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2019;62:106–13.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
108. Hong CG, Cho JH, Suh DC, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Lee CS. Preoperative embolization in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression: mandatory or optional? World J Surg Oncol 2017;15:45.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+ Line it
METRICS Graph View
  • 10 Web of Science
  • 15 Crossref
  • 12 Scopus
  • 2,839 View
  • 137 Download
Related articles in ASJ


Browse all articles >

Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3530    Fax: +82-2-3010-8555    E-mail:                
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
27, Dongguk-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si 10326, Korea
Tel: +82-31-966-3413    Fax: +82-2-831-3414    E-mail:                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next