bims-rebome Biomed News
on Management of bone metastases
Issue of 2026–08–09
two papers selected by
Alberto Selvanetti, Azienda Ospedaliera San Giovanni Addolorata



  1. Neurochirurgie. 2026 Aug 06. pii: S0028-3770(26)00099-8. [Epub ahead of print]72(5): 101865
       BACKGROUND: Advances in systemic therapies and stereotactic body radiotherapy have profoundly modified the prognosis of patients with spinal metastases, increasing the need for surgical strategies that minimize morbidity while maintaining oncological efficacy. This narrative review aimed to summarize the current evidence concerning minimally invasive surgery, navigation, and robotic-assisted spine surgery in contemporary metastatic spine care.
    METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases up to May 2026. Original studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical series evaluating minimally invasive techniques, and image-guided technologies for spinal metastases, were included.
    RESULTS: Minimally invasive spine surgery provides a strong level of evidence, consistently demonstrating reduced blood loss, wound complications, infection rates, drainage requirements, and hospital length of stay compared with conventional open surgery while preserving neurological and mechanical outcomes. Earlier resumption of systemic therapies further supports its integration into multidisciplinary oncological care. Navigation and robotic assistance improve pedicle screw placement accuracy and facilitate complex minimally invasive procedures, particularly in anatomically distorted vertebrae. However, evidence supporting improvements in survival, neurological recovery, construct durability, local tumor control, or other patient-centered outcomes remains limited.
    CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary surgery for spinal metastases has evolved toward tailored, multidisciplinary treatment strategies focused on mechanical stabilization, neural decompression, and rapid reintegration into oncological care. While minimally invasive surgery has become the preferred posterior approach whenever technically feasible, navigation and robotic assistance currently represent precision-enhancing technologies whose principal benefit lies in improving surgical workflow and reproducibility. Future prospective studies should evaluate their impact on clinically meaningful outcomes beyond technical performance.
    Keywords:  Minimally invasive spine surgery; RASS; Robotic-assisted spine surgery; Spinal metastases; Spine oncology; Surgical navigation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2026.101865
  2. Front Psychiatry. 2026 ;17 1761276
       Objective: To evaluate the association of a short-term mindfulness-based stress reduction program combined with auricular acupressure with preoperative sleep fragmentation, anxiety, pain, and physiological stress responses in patients with spinal metastases using a retrospective quasi-experimental before-and-after design.
    Methods: This retrospective quasi-experimental before-and-after cohort study included patients with spinal metastases who underwent surgical treatment at Weifang People's Hospital between January 2023 and January 2025. Patients admitted before implementation of the program were assigned to the control cohort, whereas patients admitted after program implementation were assigned to the intervention cohort. 92 patients were assigned to either the intervention group (n = 46), who received mindfulness-based stress reduction and auricular acupressure, or the control group (n = 46), who received standard care only. The intervention group received a one-week preoperative program combining short-term MBSR and auricular acupressure, delivered in two phases: outpatient instruction and home-based self-practice. A WeChat-based mini-program was used to deliver standardized mindfulness audio guidance and provide routine reminders during the intervention period. Auricular acupressure points were selected in accordance with national standards. The control group received standard perioperative care and educational materials, without any psychological or auricular interventions. Both groups were managed under the same pharmacological protocol. Outcome measures included subjective sleep quality (Athens Insomnia Scale, AIS), anxiety (Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, SAS), pain (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS), salivary cortisol levels, and objective sleep parameters-wake after sleep onset (WASO) and the number of nighttime awakenings-measured via a wearable device. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified time points before surgery.
    Results: The intervention group showed more favorable changes across several domains compared to the control group. Anxiety levels were significantly lower (SAS: 52.28 ± 2.75 vs. 56.20 ± 3.06, P < 0.001), as were pain scores (VAS: 4.20 ± 0.86 vs. 6.09 ± 1.35 preoperatively; 4.02 ± 0.88 vs. 5.52 ± 1.07 on admission; both P < 0.001) and salivary cortisol concentrations (580.24 ± 10.67 ng/dL vs. 609.43 ± 22.56 ng/dL, P < 0.001). Objective sleep indicators also favored the intervention, with reduced average WASO (30.00 ± 1.87 min vs. 39.87 ± 1.77 min, P < 0.001) and fewer nighttime awakenings (2.54 ± 0.21 vs. 3.55 ± 0.22, P < 0.001). These findings suggest that short-term MBSR combined with auricular acupressure may help improve sleep continuity indicators, reduce anxiety and pain, and modulate physiological stress responses in this patient population.
    Conclusion: The intervention was associated with improvements in anxiety, pain, salivary cortisol, and objective sleep continuity indicators, including reduced WASO and fewer nighttime awakenings. Although AIS scores were lower in the intervention group at an intermediate preoperative time point, the association between the intervention and AIS score change was attenuated after adjustment for covariates. Therefore, subjective insomnia outcomes should be interpreted cautiously.
    Keywords:  auricular acupressure; mindfulness-based stress reduction; non-pharmacological intervention; preoperative sleep disturbance; spinal metastases
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1761276