ArticleNeurospine2022
Hardware Failure in Spinal Tumor Surgery: A Hallmark of Longer Survival?
Article in Neurospine, 2022. 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.
- Instrumentation failure after lumbar spondylectomy for spinal tumors: a systematic review and pooled individual patient analysis.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 · 2026Article
- Implant and construct decision-making in metastatic spine tumour surgery: a review of current concepts with a decision-making algorithm.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 · 2024Review
- Spinolaminar locking plates improve fixation strength compared to pedicle screws: a biomechanical analysis.Spine deformity · 2023Article
- Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Spinal Implants for Treatment of Spinal Tumors: Perceived Advantages and Limitations.Neurospine · 2023Article
- An Updated Review on the Treatment Strategy for Spinal Metastasis from the Spine Surgeon's Perspective.Asian spine journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInstrumentation failure in spine tumor surgery is a common reason for revision operation. Increases in patient survival demand a better understanding of the hardware longevity. The study objective was to investigate risk factors for instrumentation failure requiring revision surgery in patients with spinal tumors.
methodsA retrospective cohort from a single tertiary care specialty hospital from January 2005 to January 2021, for patients with spinal primary or metastatic tumors who underwent surgical intervention with instrumentation. Demographic and treatment data were collected and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for overall survival, and separate univariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed.
resultsThree hundred fifty-one patients underwent surgical intervention for spinal tumor, of which 23 experienced instrumentation failure requiring revision surgery (6.6%). Multivariate regression analysis identified pelvic fixation (odds ratio [OR], 10.9), spinal metastasis invasiveness index (OR, 1.11), and survival of greater than 5 years (OR, 3.6) as significant risk factors for hardware failure. One- and 5-year survival rates were 57% and 8%, respectively.
conclusionInstrumentation failure after spinal tumor surgery is a common reason for revision surgery. Our study suggests that the use of pelvic fixation, invasiveness of the surgery, and survival greater than 5 years are independent risk factors for instrumentation failure.
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.