ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Modified Total en Bloc Spondylectomy with Self-Made Intervertebral Hook Blade in Spinal Tumors: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel application of FiberWire for intervertebral disc transection in en bloc spondylectomy: a case report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Early clinical efficacy of 3D-printed artificial vertebral body in spinal reconstruction after total en bloc spondylectomy for spinal tumors.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTotal en bloc spondylectomy (TES) is an important surgical treatment for spinal tumors that can achieve en bloc resection of the affected vertebral body by using the T-saw. However, the conventional TES process and the surgical instruments currently in use have some inconveniences, which may lead to longer operative times and a higher incidence of complications. To address these obstacles, we developed a modified TES technique using a homemade intervertebral hook blade. The objectives of this study were to describe our modified total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) using a homemade intervertebral hook blade and to assess its clinical effects in patients with spinal tumors.
methodsTwenty-three consecutive patients with spinal tumors were included from September 2018 to November 2021. Eleven patients underwent a modified TES using an intervertebral hook blade, and 12 patients underwent a conventional TES using a wire saw. Details of the modified technique for TES were depicted, and the intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and improvement in pain symptom and neurological function measured by visual analog score (VAS) and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score of all patients was reviewed and analyzed. Nonparametric analysis of covariates (ANCOVA) was performed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients treated with modified TES and conventional TES.
resultsThe modified TES significantly reduced operative time (F = 7.935, p = 0.010) and achieved favorable improvement of neurological function (F = 0.570, p = 0.459) and relief of pain (F = 3.196, p = 0.088) compared with the conventional TES group. The mean intraoperative blood loss in the modified TES group (2381.82 ml) was lower than that in the conventional TES group (3558.33 ml), although the difference was not statistically significant (F = 0.677, p = 0.420).
conclusionsModified TES using the intervertebral hook blade can effectively reduce the operation time and intraoperative bleeding, and meanwhile ensure the improvement of neurological function and relief of pain symptoms, suggesting that this modified technique is feasible, safe, and effective for spinal tumors.
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.