ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2018
Minimally invasive versus conventional spine surgery for vertebral metastases: a systematic review of the evidence.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Fixation Versus Open Surgical Instrumented Fusion for Thoraco-Lumbar Spinal Metastases Palliative Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Perspectives and challenges of multidisciplinary collaboration in the treatment of metastatic spinal disease: Insights from an international survey.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- Shaping the future of blood management in metastatic spine tumor surgery: the case for cell-salvaged transfusion with a propensity-matched study.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Using Endoscopic Approaches in the Surgical Management of Spinal Metastatic Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Maximal feasible resection versus hybrid therapy in spinal metastases: an updated narrative review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Ablative Techniques for the Management of Osseous Spine Metastases: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Surgical management of spinal metastases: A cross-continental study in the United States and the Netherlands.Journal of bone oncology · 2025Article
- Combined Rigid-Flexible Multibody Analysis Reveals Reduced Pedicle Screw Loads in Short-Segment Fixation for Decompressed Lumbar Spine Stabilization.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Current Concepts in the Management and Treatment of Spinal Metastases-A Systematic Literature Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Microscopically-assisted Uninstrumented Surgical Tumor Decompression as an alternative to open surgery for symptomatic metastatic epidural spinal cord compression.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- When Would Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery Not Be Preferable for Metastatic Spine Disease?International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Surgical options for metastatic spine tumors: WFNS spine committee recommendations.Neurosurgical review · 2024Review
- Rethinking Strategies for Multi-Metastatic Patients: A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis on Open Posterior Fusion Versus Percutaneous Osteosynthesis in the Treatment of Vertebral Metastases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Does Patient Blood Management Affect Outcomes in Metastatic Spine Tumour Surgery? A Review of Current Concepts.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Pros and Cons of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2024Review
- Mini-open compared with the trans-tubular approach in patients with spinal metastases underwent decompression surgery---a retrospective cohort study.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- The Utility of 'Minimal Access and Separation Surgery' in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease.Global spine journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
One of the major determinants of surgical candidacy in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases is the ability of the patient to tolerate the procedure-associated morbidity. In other pathologies, minimally invasive (MIS) procedures have been suggested to have lower intra-operative morbidity while providing similar outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the PubMed library searching for articles that directly compared the operative and post-operative outcomes of patients treated for symptomatic spinal metastases. Inclusion criteria were articles reporting two or more cases of patients >18 years old treated with MIS or open approaches for spinal metastases. Studies reporting results in spinal metastases patients that could not be disentangled from other pathologies were excluded. Our search returned 1,568 articles, of which 9 articles met the criteria for inclusion. All articles were level III evidence. Patients treated with MIS approaches tended to have lower intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative times, shorter inpatient stays, and fewer complications relative to patients undergoing surgeries with conventional approaches. Patients in the MIS and open groups had similar pain improvement, neurological improvement, and functional outcomes. Recent advances in MIS techniques may reduce surgical morbidity while providing similar symptomatic improvement in patients treated for spinal metastases. As a result, MIS techniques may expand the pool of patients with spinal metastases who are candidates for operative management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.