Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38289374›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024

Implant and construct decision-making in metastatic spine tumour surgery: a review of current concepts with a decision-making algorithm.

Naresh Kumar, Si Jian Hui, Renick Lee, Sahil Athia, Dominique A Rothenfluh, Jiong Hao Tan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Naresh KumarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Centre, National University Health System, Level 11, 1E Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. naresh@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4538-5031
Si Jian HuiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Centre, National University Health System, Level 11, 1E Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Renick LeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Centre, National University Health System, Level 11, 1E Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Sahil AthiaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Centre, National University Health System, Level 11, 1E Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Dominique A RothenfluhCentre for Spinal Surgery, CHUV University Hospital Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1005, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jiong Hao TanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Centre, National University Health System, Level 11, 1E Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
National University Health System · SGUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designNarrative Review.

objectiveMetastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS) is an important treatment modality of metastatic spinal disease (MSD). Increase in MSTS has been due to improvements in our oncological treatment, as patients have increased longevity and even those with poorer comorbidities are now being considered for surgery. However, there is currently no guideline on how MSTS surgeons should select the appropriate levels to instrument, and which type of implants should be utilised.

methodsThe current literature on MSTS was reviewed to study implant and construct decision making factors, with a view to write this narrative review. All studies that were related to instrumentation in MSTS were included.

resultsA total of 58 studies were included in this review. We discuss novel decision-making models that should be taken into account when planning for surgery in patients undergoing MSTS. These factors include the quality of bone for instrumentation, the extent of the construct required for MSTS patients, the use of cement augmentation and the choice of implant. Various studies have advocated for the use of these modalities and demonstrated better outcomes in MSTS patients when used appropriately.

conclusionWe have established a new instrumentation algorithm that should be taken into consideration for patients undergoing MSTS. It serves as an important guide for surgeons treating MSTS, with the continuous evolvement of our treatment capacity in MSD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV:

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSpinal NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingHumansProstheses and ImplantsAlgorithmImplantInstrumentationMetastasisSpineTumour

Identifiers

PMID38289374
OpenAlexW4391352997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.