ArticleBMC cancer2023
Mini-open compared with the trans-tubular approach in patients with spinal metastases underwent decompression surgery---a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgery of the tumors of the spine.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- The Conundrum of Spinal Metastases-A Review of Current Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Less Is More: Evaluating the Benefits of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the perioperative safety and efficacy of the Mini-open and trans-tubular approach in patients with spinal metastases who underwent decompression surgery.
methods37 consecutive patients with spinal metastases who underwent decompression surgery through a Mini-open or trans-tubular approach were retrospectively reviewed between June 2017 and June 2022. Thirty-four patients were included in this study. 19 underwent decompression surgery through the Mini-open approach, and 15 underwent the Trans-tubular approach. T-test and chi-square test were used to evaluate the difference between baseline data and primary and secondary outcomes.
resultsBaseline characteristics did not differ significantly between Trans-tubular and Mini-open groups except for the Ambulatory status (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (P = 0.061). Operative time, intraoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative complication (dural tear), and postoperative hospitalization were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). The trans-tubular group had significantly less amount of postoperative drainage (133.5 ± 30.9 ml vs. 364.5 ± 64.2 ml, p = 0.003), and the time of drainage (3.1 ± 0.2 days vs. 4.6 ± 0.5 days, p = 0.019) compared with Mini-open group (P < 0.05). Sub-group analysis showed that for patients with hypo-vascular tumors, the Trans-tubular group had significantly less blood loss than the Mini-open group (951.1 ± 171.7 ml vs. 1599.1 ± 105.7 ml, P = 0.026).
conclusionsDecompression through Mini-open or Trans-tubular was safe and effective for patients with spinal metastases. The trans-tubular approach might be more suitable for patients with hypo-vascular tumors.
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.