ReviewJournal of bone oncology2022
Analysis of morbidity and mortality in patients with primary bone tumors who underwent sacrectomy: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of bone oncology, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Sacral Frame Technique: A Novel Trans/Extrasacral Approach for Giant Sacral Schwannomas Resection with Sacropelvic Biomechanics Preservation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Recurrence Patterns After Resection of Sacral Chordoma: Toward an Optimized Postoperative Target Volume Definition.Cancers · 2025Article
- Surgical Management of Sacral Bone Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes, Complications, and Survival.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Surgical and Oncologic Outcome following Sacrectomy for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors and Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Article
- Clinical Outcome after Surgical Treatment of Sacral Chordomas: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort of 27 Patients.Cancers · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sacrectomy is indicated for the resection of life-threatening tumors in the sacrum area. Several studies have been conducted to investigate important aspects of sacrectomy to help reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients who underwent the procedure. This aim of this systematic review was to highlight the prognoses of patients who underwent sacrectomy for the resection of primary bone tumors by analyzing information related to the intraoperative and perioperative periods of the procedure. Methodology: Several databases were searched for relevant articles using the keywords "sacrectomy" and "survival" associated with the Boolean operators "or" and "and" ([SACRECTOMY OR SACRECTOM*] AND SURVIVAL). Results: A total of 13 articles were selected for data collection. The studies reported in the articles included a total of 384 patients, 140 of whom underwent partial sacrectomy, whereas 244 underwent total sacral resections. The results of the analysis indicated that the average volume of blood lost during a resection performed using the combined anterior and posterior approaches (average duration, 8.35 h) was 4571.94 mL. Regarding poor outcomes and adverse events in the included studies, 10 patients died in the early postoperative period, whereas four patients had hemorrhagic shock. The most prevalent complications reported were surgical wound infection and sphincter dysfunction. Conclusion: The optimal surgical approach for sacrectomy depends on the location of the tumor. The anterior approach, preferably with laparoscopy, is currently widely used to reduce the amount of blood lost during the procedure. Although the most prevalent complications of sacrectomy have a high incidence rate, the procedure has a low mortality rate.
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.