Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35317753›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Minimally invasive separation surgery for the treatment of spinal metastases with small incision and freehand pedicle screw fixation: the surgical learning curve.

Jiaming Lin, Xiaojun Zhu, Qinglian Tang, Jinchang Lu, Huaiyuan Xu, Guohui Song, Chuangzhong Deng, Hao Wu, Yufeng Huang, Anfei Huang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jiaming Lin *Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Xiaojun Zhu *Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Qinglian TangDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Jinchang LuDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Huaiyuan XuDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Guohui SongDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Chuangzhong DengDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Hao WuDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Yufeng HuangDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Anfei HuangDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Yanyang XuDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Hongmin ChenDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China.
Jin WangDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China. wangjinbs@sysucc.org.cn.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China

Funding

the Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province 2020B090923001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive separation surgery (MISS) is a safe and effective surgical technique, the current optimal treatment for spinal metastases. However, the learning curve for this technique has not been analyzed. This study aimed to define and analyze the surgical learning curve of MISS for the treatment of spinal metastases with small incision and freehand pedicle screw fixation.

methodsA continuous series of 62 patients with spinal metastases who underwent MISS were included. Each patient's operative data were accurately counted. The improvement of the patients' neurological function was followed up after surgery to evaluate the surgical treatment effect. Logarithmic curve-fit regression was used to analyze the surgical learning curve of MISS. The number of cases needed to achieve proficiency was analyzed. Based on this cut-off point, this series of cases was divided into the early phase and later phase groups. The influence of the time sequence of MISS on surgical data and surgical efficacy was analyzed.

resultsThe operative time decreased gradually with the number of surgical cases increasing and stabilized after the 20th patient. There was no statistical difference in demographic characteristics and preoperative characteristics between the two groups. The mean operative time in the later phase group was about 39 min shorter than that in the early phase group (mean 227.95 vs. 189.02 min, P = 0.027). However, it did not affect other operative data or the surgical treatment effect.

conclusionThe learning curve of MISS for spinal metastases is not steep. With the increase of surgeons' experience, the operative time drops rapidly and stabilizes within a certain range. MISS can be safely and effectively performed at the beginning of a surgeon's caree.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsSpinal FusionSpinal NeoplasmsHumansLearning CurveLumbar VertebraeTreatment OutcomeBone metastasesMalignant tumorMinimally invasive separation surgery (MISS)MyelopathySpinal metastasesSurgical learning curve

Identifiers

PMID35317753
PMCPMC8939122
OpenAlexW4221046296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.