SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2023
Advantages of 3-dimensional exoscope-assisted anterior cervical spine surgery: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exoscope versus microscope in spine surgery: A meta-analysis based on procedure-specific subgroup analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- High-Definition 4K-3D Exoscope in Spine Surgery: A Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
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
backgroundVisual instruments are essential to ensure high-quality surgical outcomes for minimally invasive procedures and have gradually become the focus of research. Recently, a novel visual auxiliary instrument, a 3-dimensional exoscope (EX), has been applied for spinal surgery. However, its advantages over other auxiliary means (OAMs) in anterior cervical surgery need to be assessed.
objectiveTo compare and evaluate the clinical outcomes of EX and OAMs in anterior cervical spine surgery using a meta-analysis and to provide the latest clinical evidence.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Database were systematically reviewed for relevant literature published prior to January 21, 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed bias risk in the included literature. Review Manager software (version 5.4; the Cochrane Collaboration) was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
resultsfive studies, one prospective and four retrospective cohort studies, with a total of 349 patients (154 in the EX group and 195 in the OAMs group) were included. A meta-analysis showed that compared to OAMs, EX-assisted anterior cervical spine surgery resulted in less intraoperative hemorrhage [WMD = -8.96, 95% CI (-14.21, -3.71), P = 0.0008]. Nevertheless, no significant differences in VAS scores, JOA scores, operation time, hospitalization time, and complication rate were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionEX and OAMs are equally safe and effective for anterior cervical spine surgery; however, compared to OAMs, EX results in less intraoperative hemorrhage.
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.