ArticleNeural regeneration research2019
Microsurgical efficacy in 326 children with tethered cord syndrome: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative demonstration of reduced distal spinal cord stiffness following untethering of the spinal cord using ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE).World neurosurgery: X · 2023Article
- [Expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of spina bifida].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2021Article
- Towards Guideline-Based Management of Tethered Cord Syndrome in Spina Bifida: A Global Health Paradigm Shift in the Era of Prenatal Surgery.Neurospine · 2019Article
- Surgical treatment of tethered cord syndrome-comparing the results of surgeries with and without electrophysiological monitoring.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tethered cord syndrome is a progressive disease with a typically insidious onset in infants and children, and which can lead to persistent progress of neurological deficits and a high rate of disability without timely intervention. The purpose of this study was to investigate the curative effect of microsurgery in children with different types of tethered cord syndrome. In this study, we analyzed 326 patients with tethered cord syndrome, aged from 2 months to 14 years old, who were followed for 3-36 months after microscopic surgery. Based on clinical manifestations and imaging findings, these patients were classified into five types: tight filum terminale (53 cases), lipomyelomeningocele (55 cases), lipomatous malformation (124 cases), postoperative adhesions (56 cases), and split cord malformation (38 cases). All patients underwent microsurgery. Curative effects were measured before and 3 months after surgery by Spina Bifida Neurological Scale based on sensory and motor functions, reflexes, and bladder and bowel function. The results showed that Spina Bifida Neurological Scale scores improved in all five types after surgery. Overall effective rates in these patients were 75%. Effective rates were 91% in tight filum terminale, 84% in lipomyelomeningocele, 65% in lipomatous malformation, 75% in postoperative adhesion, and 79% in split cord malformation. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that types of tethered cord syndrome (lipoma-type or not) and symptom duration before surgery were independent influencing factors of surgical outcome. These results show that therapeutic effect is markedly different in patients with different types of tethered cord syndrome. Suitable clinical classification for tethered cord syndrome will be helpful in predicting prognosis and guiding treatment. This trial has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR1800016464).
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.