Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27271724›Full record

Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2016

Outcomes of radical debridement versus no debridement for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis.

Jun Qian, Aierken Rijiepu, Bin Zhu, Dasheng Tian, Lei Chen, Juehua Jing

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Surgical treatment of spinal tuberculosis: an updated review.European journal of medical research · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Osteotomized debridement versus curetted debridement in posterior approach in treating thoracolumbar tuberculosis: a comparative study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Challenges and controversies in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2020
    Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. [Treatment of thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis by posterior focus debridement and bone grafting and fixation combined with psoas abscess debridement and local chemotherapy via different approachs].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jun QianDepartment of Orthopaedics, the Second Hospital of AnHui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, Anhui, China.
Aierken RijiepuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Hetian Area Hospital, Hetian, Xinjiang, China.
Bin ZhuDepartment of Orthopaedics, the Second Hospital of AnHui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, Anhui, China.
Dasheng TianDepartment of Orthopaedics, the Second Hospital of AnHui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, Anhui, China.
Lei ChenDepartment of Orthopaedics, the Second Hospital of AnHui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, Anhui, China.
Juehua JingDepartment of Orthopaedics, the Second Hospital of AnHui Medical University, Hefei, 230601, Anhui, China. jjhpaper@sina.com.
Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University · CNAnhui Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhether radical debridement is necessary for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis is still questionable. The objective of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcomes of radical debridement versus no debridement for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis.

methodsSeventy-four thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis patients with a neurological function of grade D and E underwent surgery and received the same chemotherapy regiment from January 2009 to October 2014. All patients were divided into group A and B by taking the drawing of lots. In group A, radical debridement, bone graft, and instrumentation were performed. Isolated posterior instrumentation without debridement were performed in group B. The operative time, blood loss, visual analogue score (VAS), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), kyphotic angle, Frankel grading, fusion rate, and complications were evaluated.

resultsGroup B had a better clinical outcome with regard to the operative time, blood loss, VAS score first week post-operatively, and the ESR value in the third and sixth month post-operatively than group A, and the differences between the two groups about those values all presented a significant difference (P < 0.05). However, no difference was observed between the two groups for the kyphotic angle (P = 0.088) and fusion rate (P = 0.164) at the final follow-up. Neurological function of all cases exhibited normal neurological function in the two groups at the final follow-up. Two cases of pulmonary infection and four cases of wound infection in group A. No serious complications were observed in group B.

conclusionsIsolated posterior instrumentation without debridement is a suitable treatment for selected patients because of minor surgical trauma, fewer complications, and spontaneous fusion.

Indexed as

DebridementBone TransplantationHumansLumbar VertebraeProspective StudiesSpinal FusionThoracic VertebraeTuberculosis, SpinalChemotherapyDebridementSpinal tuberculosisSurgery

Identifiers

PMID27271724
OpenAlexW2418335371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.