ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
Severe major vessel injury during peadicle screw removal: a case report.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pedicle screw fixation (PSF) has been the standard therapy for the treatment of various spinal diseases. Although complications are identified regularly, iatrogenic vascular injury is one of the rare but life-threatening complications. In this literature, we describe the first case of inferior vena cava (IVC) injury during pedicle screw removal. Case description: A 31-year-old man was treated by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for an L1 compression fracture. After a year, the fracture healed well and hardware removal surgery was performed. During the procedure, the hardware on the right was removed unremarkably except for the L2 pedicle screw which slipped into the retroperitoneum because of the improper technique. The CT angiogram revealed the screw had breached the anterior cortex of the L2 vertebral body and penetrated the IVC. After multidisciplinary cooperation, the defect of IVC was reconstructed and the L2 screw was removed from the posterior approach in the end. Result: The patient recovered well and was discharged after 3 weeks without further events. The removal of the contralateral implants was unremarkable at 7 months postoperatively. At the 3-year follow-up, the patient returned to his normal daily activity without any complaints. Conclusion: Although pedicle screw removal is a rather simple procedure, severe complications may have occurred from this procedure. Surgeons should keep vigilant to avoid the complication noted in this case.
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.