ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
Intramedullary spinal cord and filum tumours-long-term outcome: single institution case series.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Radiomics-Driven Model to Distinguish Between Clinically Similar Myxopapillary Ependymomas and Lumbosacral Schwannomas.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- Clinical Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes of Intramedullary Spinal Cord Ependymomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of adult primary spinal cord tumors: A 10-year experience.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes in adults surgically treated for intramedullary spinal cord tumor.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Spinal ependymoma in adults: from molecular advances to new treatment perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
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
backgroundIntramedullary spinal cord tumours are rare and account for about 2-4% of primary CNS tumours. Ependymomas and astrocytomas are most frequent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term neurological outcome, quality of life (QoL), survival, need for additional treatment and frequency of neuropathic pain in a patient group treated at a tertiary university hospital.
methodRetrospective descriptive study of 52 long-term survivors with intramedullary or filum tumours consenting to participate in this study. Fifty-six operations were performed in 48 patients. Clinical and radiological follow-up period was 113 and 117 months, respectively.
resultsGood neurological outcome (ASIA score D or E, modified McCormick grade 1 or 2) was achieved in 88%. We found two negative prognostic factors in regards of severe disability which were large craniocaudal tumour size (p = 0.004) and histologic verified astrocytomas (p = 0.002). SF-36 results showed significantly lower results on all five subdomains concerning physical function, whereas scores for mental health and role emotional showed no significant differences compared to Norwegian norms. Ten patients including all astrocytoma patients, one primitive neuroectodermal tumour and three recurrent tumours of filum terminale had adjuvant therapy. None of the patients with intramedullary ependymoma had adjuvant therapy. Neuropathic pain was present in 54% of patients at the last follow-up.
conclusionThis series shows that good results can be obtained with surgery for intramedullary tumours, even without perioperative neurophysiological monitoring. Multicentre studies are needed for further evaluation of negative and positive prognostic factors to further improve outcome.
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.