ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Benefits of Early Surgical Treatment for Patients with Multilevel Cervical Canal Stenosis of Acute Traumatic Central Cord Syndrome.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spinal cord injury: Current trends in acute management.Brain & spine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCurrently, there exists considerable debate surrounding the optimal treatment approaches for different subtypes of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the benefits associated with conservative treatment and treatments with different surgical periods for patients diagnosed with acute traumatic central cord syndrome (ATCCS) and multilevel cervical canal stenosis (CCS).
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, and 93 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria in our hospital between 2015 and 2020 were followed for a minimum duration of 2 years. Among them, 30 patients (Group A) received conservative treatment, 18 patients (Group B) received early surgery (≤7 days), and 45 patients (Group C) received late surgery (>7 days). The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and recovery rate (RR) were evaluated. Multivariate linear regression was used to analyze prognostic determinants. Cost-utility analysis was performed based on the EQ-5D scale.
resultsThe ASIA grade, JOA score, and RR of all three groups improved compared with the previous evaluation (P < 0.05). During follow-up, the ASIA grade, JOA score, and RR of Group B were all better than for Group A and Group C (P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between Group A and C (P > 0.05). The EQ-5D scale in Group B was optimal at the last follow-up. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of Group A was the lowest, while that of Group B compared to Group A was less than the threshold of patients' willingness to pay. Age, initial ASIA grade, and treatment types significantly affected the outcomes.
conclusionsBoth conservative and surgical treatments yield good results. Compared with patients who received conservative treatment and late surgery, patients who received early surgery had better clinical function and living quality. Despite the higher cost, early surgery is cost-effective when compared to conservative treatment. Younger age, initial better ASIA grade, and earlier surgery were associated with better prognosis.
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.