ArticleNeurospine2022
Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of Transforaminal Endoscopy and Microtubular Technology for the Treatment of Lumbar Dumbbell-Shaped Tumors.
Article in Neurospine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Refining the far-lateral pathway: ten-year outcomes of posterolateral transforaminal resection of spinal tumors.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Intracapsular Resection of Thoracic Extradural Schwannomas via the Isthmic Approach: Investigation of Clinical Feasibility With 41 Case Series.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Comparison of the surgical outcomes of the posterior approach, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and combined approach for thoracic dumbbell tumors based on a new classification: a retrospective study.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Risk Factors of Restenosis After Full Endoscopic Foraminotomy for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: Case-Control Study.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Facetectomy and Fusion for Resection of Extensive Dumbbell Tumors in the Lumbar Spine.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Feasibility and efficacy of spinal microtubular technique for resection of lumbar dumbbell-shaped tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze differences in feasibility and efficacy between the paravertebral approach and microtubular tumorectomy (PAMT) or percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic tumorectomy (PTET) for the treatment of lumbar dumbbell-shaped tumors.
methodsClinical data of dumbbell-shaped lumbar tumors in patients treated with PAMT or PTET in our hospital between June 2015 and November 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The gross total resection (GTR) rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay (PHS), postoperative neurological function, and spinal stability were compared between the 2 surgical methods. Neurological improvement was assessed using the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score.
resultsFifteen cases of GTR (93.8%) and 1 case of subtotal resection were included in the PTET group, whilst all 18 patients in the PAMT group achieved GTR. There was no significant difference in the GTR rate, operation time, and PHS between the PAMT and PTET groups. The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the PTET group than in the PAMT group. At the last follow-up, there was no significant difference in the VAS or JOA scores between PTET and PAMT. No tumor recurrence or spinal instability was observed in either group during the follow-up period.
conclusionBoth PAMT and PTET can achieve Eden type III-IV lumbar 1-stage tumor resection without additional spinal internal fixation due to reduced muscle, ligament, and facet joint damage. No lumbar instability and tumor recurrence occurred, and neurological function was improved.
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.