ReviewSurgical neurology international2020
Nonmissile penetrating spinal injuries: Mechanisms, expectations, and management.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Unique Case of an Arrow-Related Penetrating Spinal Cord Injury in Kenya and a Comprehensive Literature Review.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2026Article
- Thoracic spine stab injury with a retained knife.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- Pedicled multifidus muscle flaps to treat dural tears due to penetrating spinal stab wounds: Two case reports and a literature review.Surgical neurology international · 2024Article
- Direct withdrawal of a retained foreign body bisecting the thoracic spinal canal in a neurologically intact pediatric patient: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan, Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Combined with Plain Film X-Ray in Spinal Injuries.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonmissile penetrating spinal injury (NMPSI) is an uncommon form of traumatic injury to the spine. Here, we present a comprehensive and contemporary literature review that provides insight into NMPSI-type injuries, their mechanisms, clinical practice, management, and expectations.
methodsAn extensive review of the published literature was conducted in PubMed, OVID Medline, and EMBASE journals for studies of nonmissile penetrating spine injuries. Terms for search included NMPSI and nonmissile penetrating spinal cord injury. No date restrictions were used.
resultsThe search yielded only 17 related articles. Cross-checking of articles was conducted to exclude duplicate articles. The 17 articles were screened for their full text and English language availability. We finalized those articles pertaining to the topic.
conclusionThe mechanism of injury in NMPSI occurs in two different stages. Immediate injury is caused by direct damage to the neurological structures. The delayed injury response is caused by damage to the spinal vasculature and activated immune response pathways. Computed tomography (CT) angiograms or formal diagnostic angiograms are indicated to identify vascular injury or development of pseudoaneurysm and can be performed both preoperatively and postoperatively. Surgically, decompressive procedures include laminectomies and hemilaminectomies. Dural exploration may be indicated if a cerebrospinal fluid leak with fistula develops from dural puncture. Further research and technologies are being developed to provide patients who have suffered NMPSI with more resources for a better quality of life.
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.