ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparison of two surgical interventions for lumbar brucella spondylitis in adults: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of spinal fusion in Brucella spondylitis: a systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Quantifying research hotspots and trends in brucella spondylitis: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Analysis of Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications of Thoracolumbar Brucella Spondylitis.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy analysis of one-stage posterior debridement, bone graft fusion, and internal fixation for the treatment of lumbar brucellosis spondylitis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Application of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Nursing in Patients with Brucellar Spondylitis and Its Effects on Pain, Inflammation, and Immune Function.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Unraveling brucellosis: advances in pathogenesis, diagnostic strategies, therapeutic innovations, and public health perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- A Novel Differentiation Nomogram Model for Brucellar Spondylitis and Tuberculous Spondylitis.Infection and drug resistance · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the posterior procedure with the combined anterior and posterior procedure in the surgical management of lumbar Brucella spondylitis. From January 2015 to June 2020, a total of 62 patients presenting with lumbar Brucella spondylitis underwent either one-stage posterior pedicle fixation, debridement, and interbody fusion (Group A, n = 33) or anterior debridement, bone grafting, and posterior instrumentation (Group B, n = 29). All patients were followed up for an average of 25.4 ± 1.5 months and achieved complete resolution of lumbar Brucella spondylitis. No significant differences between the groups were observed in terms of age or pre-operative, three-month postoperative and final follow-up indices of the VAS, ESR, CRP, lordosis angle, ODI scores, fusion time, and time of serum agglutination test conversion to negative (P > 0.05). Each patient exhibited notable improvements in neurological function, as assessed by the JOA score rating system. Group A demonstrated significantly shorter operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay compared to Group B (P < 0.05). Superficial wound infection was observed in one case in Group A, whereas Group B experienced one case each of intraoperative peritoneal rupture, postoperative ileus, iliac vein injury, and superficial wound infection. This study supports the efficacy of both surgical interventions in the treatment of lumbar Brucella spondylitis, with satisfactory outcomes. However, the posterior approach demonstrated advantages, including reduced surgical time, diminished blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer perioperative complications. Consequently, the one-stage posterior pedicle fixation, debridement, and interbody fusion represent a superior treatment option.
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.