ArticleScientific reports2022
Phase I 270° single-incision percutaneous spinal endoscopy for decompression treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopy-assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with internal fixation vs conventional surgery in the treatment of cervical disc herniation.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
- Morphometric Evaluation of Thoracolumbar Spinal Canal and Cord by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Normal Small-Breed Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the feasibility of Phase I percutaneous spinal endoscopy with a 270° single incision in the ventral and dorsal dura mater for decompression treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS). Phase I percutaneous spinal endoscopy with a two-path (posterior and posterolateral approaches) single incision with a 270° decompression was performed in four cases of TSS with compression in the ventral and dorsal dura mater. The affected intervertebral space was located during the surgery, and the ossified ligamentum flavum in the ventral and dorsal dura mater was removed via laminectomy, which formed a decompression space in the thoracic cord. Next, posterolateral transforaminal expansion and plasty were performed to remove the ventral intervertebral disk. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, thoracic spinal cord function score of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) (11-point method), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy. No dura mater or thoracic nerve injury occurred during the surgery. The symptoms of weakness in the lower extremities improved after the surgery. The postoperative magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography examinations showed compression removal and dura mater bulging. The postoperative VAS, JOA, and ODI scores improved compared with the preoperative scores. Two surgical trajectories, posterior and posterolateral approaches, were established by a single incision using thoracic spinal canal decompression with Phase I 270° single-incision percutaneous spinal endoscopy. The posterior approach was performed mainly by translaminar unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression in the ventral and dorsal dura mater, whereas the posterolateral approach was performed by decompression in the ventral dura mater to the midline of the vertebrae. This surgical method could be applied as a safe and feasible minimally invasive treatment for TSS with compression on both the ventral and dorsal dura mater.
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.