ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023
An improved total en bloc spondylectomy for L5 vertebral giant cell tumor through a single-stage posterior approach.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Instrumentation failure after lumbar spondylectomy for spinal tumors: a systematic review and pooled individual patient analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) is strongly recommended for spinal giant cell tumor (GCT), it is extremely difficult to excise a L5 neoplasm intactly through the single-stage posterior approach. Given the risk of neurological and vascular injury, intralesional curettage (IC) is usually recommended for the treatment of L5 GCT. In this study, we presented our experience with the use of an improved TES to treat L5 GCT through the single-stage posterior approach.
methodsThis study included 20 patients with L5 GCT who received surgical treatment in our department between September 2010 and April 2021. Of them, seven patients received improved TES without iliac osteotomy, and the other 13 patients received IC (n = 8), sagittal en bloc resection (n = 1), TES with iliac osteotomy (n = 3), and TES with radicotomy (n = 1) as control.
resultsThe mean operative time was 331.43 ± 92.95 min for improved TES group and 365.77 ± 85.17 min for the control group (p = 0.415), with the mean blood loss of 1142.86 ± 340.87 ml vs. 1969.23 ± 563.30 ml (p = 0.002). Postoperative treatment included bisphosphonates in nine patients and denosumab in 12 patients including one patient who changed from bisphosphonates to denosumab. Three patients who received IC experienced local recurrence, and no relapse was observed in improved TES group.
conclusionSingle-stage posterior TES for L5 GCT was previously considered impossible. In this study, we presented our experience with the use of an improved surgical technique for L5 TES through the single-stage posterior approach, which has proved to be superior to the conventional procedures in terms of blood loss control and complication and recurrence rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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.