ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Percutaneous versus open posterior stabilization and decompression in AOSpine-type A3 thoracolumbar fractures with neurological deficit.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of mTLICS versus TLICS and TL AOSIS in stratifying three-tier treatment for thoracolumbar injuries: focus on intermediate score range.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- A Novel Leverage Technique Using Monoaxial Pedicle Screw for Reduction of Thoracolumbar Compression Fractures: Surgical Technique and Analysis of Radiological Parameters.Orthopaedic surgery · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between two treatment strategies focusing on non-osteoporotic AOSpine-type A3 fractures of the thoracolumbar spine with neurological deficits at levels T11 to L2.
methodsIn total, 67 patients between 18 and 60 years of age who were treated operatively with either of the two treatment strategies were included. One treatment strategy included open posterior stabilization and decompression, whereas the other was based on percutaneous posterior stabilization and decompression via a tubular retraction system. Demographic data, surgical variables, and further parameters were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment score, were measured to assess functional outcomes. The regional Cobb angle (CA), the anterior height ratio of the fractured vertebrae (AHRV), and the degree of canal encroachment (DCE) were assessed. The ASIA score was used to assess neurological function recovery. The follow-up period was at least 12 months.
resultsSurgical time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the MIS group. Regarding radiological outcome, CA and AHRV at the time of follow-up did not show a significant difference. DCE at the time of follow-up was significantly improved in the MIS group. Lower VAS scores and better ODIs were observed in the MIS group at the 6-month follow-up, but similar outcomes were observed at the 12-month follow-up. The ASIA score was similar between both groups at the 12-month follow-up.
conclusionsBoth treatment strategies are safe and effective; however, MIS could provide earlier pain relief and better functional outcomes compared with OS.
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.