Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38510618›Full record

ReviewBrain & spine2024

Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A systematic review.

Timon F G Vercoulen, Menco J S Niemeyer, Felix Peuker, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, F Cumhur Oner, Said Sadiqi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effect of robotic-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation for thoracolumbar fractures: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.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 · 2026
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Timon F G VercoulenDiakonessenhuis, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Bosboomstraat 1, 3582, KE, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Menco J S NiemeyerUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Felix PeukerUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jorrit-Jan VerlaanUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
F Cumhur OnerUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Said SadiqiUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The treatment of traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine fractures remains controversial. To date no consensus exists on the correct choice of surgical approach and technique. Research question: to provide a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the available different surgical methods and their quantified outcomes. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched between 2001 and 2020 using the term 'spinal fractures'. Inclusion criteria were: adults, ≥10 cases, ≥12 months follow-up, thoracic or lumbar fractures, and surgery <3 weeks of trauma. Studies were categorized per surgical technique: Posterior open (PO), posterior percutaneous (PP), stand-alone vertebral body augmentation (SA), anterior scopic (AS), anterior open (AO), posterior percutaneous and anterior open (PPAO), posterior percutaneous and anterior scopic (PPAS), posterior open and anterior open (POAO) and posterior open and anterior scopic (POAS). The PO group was used as a reference group. Results: After duplicate removal 6042 articles were identified. A total of 102 articles were Included, in which 137 separate surgical technique cohorts were described: PO (n = 75), PP, (n = 39), SA (n = 12), AO (n = 5), PPAO (n = 1), PPAS (n = 1), POAO (n = 2) and POAS (n = 2). Discussion and conclusion: For type A3/A4 burst fractures, without severe neurological deficit, posterior percutaneous (PP) technique seems the safest and most feasible option in the past two decades. If needed, PP can be combined with anterior augmentation to prevent secondary kyphosis. Furthermore, posterior open (PO) technique is feasible in almost all types of fractures. Also, this technique can provide for an additional posterior decompression or fusion. Overall, no neurologic deterioration was reported following surgical intervention.

Indexed as

FractureLumbarSpineSurgeryThoracalTrauma

Identifiers

PMID38510618
PMCPMC10951763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.