Management of metastatic spinal disease in low- and middle-income countries: an international survey of practices and challenges in Latin America

Spinal metastases impose urgent diagnostic and therapeutic demands; however, evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Latin America is sparse. We aimed to characterize real-world practices, access gaps, and priorities to in-form context-adapted guidelines. We conducted a multinational, cross-sectional online survey (September–October 2025) of licensed clinicians managing spinal metastases across 20 Latin American countries. A validated multilingual instrument (60 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.87) assessed practice patterns, diagnostic and therapeutic resources, perceived complications and outcomes, and barriers to care. Because this was a clinician-reported survey rather than a patient-level registry, estimates of survival, complications, neurological or ambulatory recovery, length of stay, and reintervention were considered perceptions of local practice and were not interpreted as objective clinical outcomes or measures of treatment effectiveness. A total of 1,318 complete responses were analyzed using descriptive and nonparametric comparative statistics. Respondents were predominantly neurosurgeons (63.4%) and orthopedic spine surgeons (34.3%); most practiced in tertiary centers (88.0%) and managed 10–50 spinal metastasis cases annually (76.6%). Diagnostic capacity was uneven: MRI was the preferred initial study (69.9%), yet round-the-clock availability existed in only 40.5%; advanced imaging was routine in 20.9% and unavailable in 30.1%. Symptom-to-diagnosis intervals were 1–3 months in 56.9% and > 6 months in 13.7%, with longer delays in public and lower-middle-income settings (p ≤ 0.041). Biopsy access was present in 90.9%, but pathology turnaround exceeded two weeks in 26.1%. Surgical access was always selected in 86.3%; open surgery predominated (56.9%), combined approaches 29.4%, and minimally invasive surgery 8.5%. Time-to-surgery exceeded two weeks for 26.8% of cases. Stereotactic body radiotherapy was available in 14.4%, and initiation of radiotherapy occurred > 1 month after indication in 62.7%. Economic cost (46.7%), limited instrumentation (19.7%), and delayed diagnosis (19.1%) were leading barriers. Multidisciplinary tumor boards were routine in 35.3%. Reported survival exceeded one year in 59.3% of practices; common complications included infection (33.8%), implant failure (25.0%), and pulmonary events (22.3%). Standardized outcome scales were used routinely by 79.6%. In Latin America, clinicians demonstrate broad expertise but face systemic constraints (diagnostic delays, restricted advanced imaging/navigation, limited SBRT, and high out-of-pocket costs), that blunt timely, integrated care. Priority actions include accelerating diagnostic pipelines, expanding radiotherapy and navigation assisted capacity, strengthening multidisciplinary pathways, and implementing financial protection. Regionally coordinated registries and targeted training are essential to narrow equity gaps in metastatic spine care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neurosurgical Review
Published
2026-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-026-04501-9
Primary Topic
Management of metastatic bone disease
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Management of metastatic spinal disease in low- and middle-income countries: an international survey of practices and challenges in Latin America

Manuel de Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Jose Carlos Sauri Barraza, Adrian Sánchez Gomez, Gervith Reyes Soto et al.
Neurosurgical Review
Management of metastatic bone disease
article

Management of metastatic spinal disease in low- and middle-income countries: an international survey of practices and challenges in Latin America

Manuel de Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Jose Carlos Sauri Barraza, Adrian Sánchez Gomez, Gervith Reyes Soto, Andreina Rosario Rosario, İsmail Bozkurt, A N Shkarubo, César Luiz Bertonha, Carlos J. Soriano, Ismael Antonio Peralta Baez, Daniel Vega Moreno, Ramiro López-Elizalde, Antonio Sosa Najera, Danil Nurmukhametov, Ренат Нурмухаметов, Carlos Castillo Rangel, Rodolfo Guerrero Perez, Ernest J. Barthélemy, Santiago Hem, Alberto Luis Martinez Mateo, Bary G. Bigay Mercedes, Salman Sharif, Ian Woolley, Francisco Moscoso Santiago, Vladimir Nikolenko, Nelson Daniel Rodriguez Lopez, Adán Aníbal Romano, Freddy Flores Lebron, Patricia Moscoso Santiago, Nicola Montemurro, Juan Carlos Roa Montes de Oca
article en

Abstract

Spinal metastases impose urgent diagnostic and therapeutic demands; however, evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Latin America is sparse. We aimed to characterize real-world practices, access gaps, and priorities to in-form context-adapted guidelines. We conducted a multinational, cross-sectional online survey (September–October 2025) of licensed clinicians managing spinal metastases across 20 Latin American countries. A validated multilingual instrument (60 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.87) assessed practice patterns, diagnostic and therapeutic resources, perceived complications and outcomes, and barriers to care. Because this was a clinician-reported survey rather than a patient-level registry, estimates of survival, complications, neurological or ambulatory recovery, length of stay, and reintervention were considered perceptions of local practice and were not interpreted as objective clinical outcomes or measures of treatment effectiveness. A total of 1,318 complete responses were analyzed using descriptive and nonparametric comparative statistics. Respondents were predominantly neurosurgeons (63.4%) and orthopedic spine surgeons (34.3%); most practiced in tertiary centers (88.0%) and managed 10–50 spinal metastasis cases annually (76.6%). Diagnostic capacity was uneven: MRI was the preferred initial study (69.9%), yet round-the-clock availability existed in only 40.5%; advanced imaging was routine in 20.9% and unavailable in 30.1%. Symptom-to-diagnosis intervals were 1–3 months in 56.9% and > 6 months in 13.7%, with longer delays in public and lower-middle-income settings (p ≤ 0.041). Biopsy access was present in 90.9%, but pathology turnaround exceeded two weeks in 26.1%. Surgical access was always selected in 86.3%; open surgery predominated (56.9%), combined approaches 29.4%, and minimally invasive surgery 8.5%. Time-to-surgery exceeded two weeks for 26.8% of cases. Stereotactic body radiotherapy was available in 14.4%, and initiation of radiotherapy occurred > 1 month after indication in 62.7%. Economic cost (46.7%), limited instrumentation (19.7%), and delayed diagnosis (19.1%) were leading barriers. Multidisciplinary tumor boards were routine in 35.3%. Reported survival exceeded one year in 59.3% of practices; common complications included infection (33.8%), implant failure (25.0%), and pulmonary events (22.3%). Standardized outcome scales were used routinely by 79.6%. In Latin America, clinicians demonstrate broad expertise but face systemic constraints (diagnostic delays, restricted advanced imaging/navigation, limited SBRT, and high out-of-pocket costs), that blunt timely, integrated care. Priority actions include accelerating diagnostic pipelines, expanding radiotherapy and navigation assisted capacity, strengthening multidisciplinary pathways, and implementing financial protection. Regionally coordinated registries and targeted training are essential to narrow equity gaps in metastatic spine care.

Neurosurgical ReviewVol. 49(1)
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RU), Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara (MX), Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo (DO), Sechenov University (RU), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University (US), National University of General San Martín (AR), Liaquat National Hospital (PK), Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires (AR), Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center (US), Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo (DO), Universidad Iberoamericana (DO), Hospital San Juan de la Cruz (ES), Hospital Madre Teresa (BR), Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (MX), Complejo Hospitalario de Salamanca (ES), Memorial Ankara Hospital (TR), Hospitales Regionales de Alta Especialidad (MX), Universidad de Morelia (MX), Research Institute of Emergency Care (RU), National Institute of Health Sciences (LK), Unidad de Cirugía Artroscópica (ES), Burdenko Neurosurgery Institute (RU), Universidad del Azuay (EC), Centro Médico ABC (MX), Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajío (MX), Technological Institute of Celaya (MX), Universidad de la Tercera Edad (DO), Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (MX), University of Celaya (MX), Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana (IT), Pemex (Mexico) (MX), Instituto Tecnológico de Morelia (MX), Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers (MX), Tecnológico de Monterrey (MX)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Management of metastatic bone disease
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.