Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38510622›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2024

Single- and Multilevel Corpectomy and Vertebral body replacement for treatment of spinal infections. A retrospective single-center study of 100 cases.

J Neuhoff, O Berkulian, A Kramer, S Thavarajasingam, A Wengert, P Schleicher, A Pingel, F Kandziora

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Thoracic corpectomy and vertebral body reconstruction (TCVBR): a systematic review and meta-analysis.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
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

J NeuhoffBG Unfallklinik, Center for Spinal Surgery and Neurotraumatology, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
O BerkulianBG Unfallklinik, Center for Spinal Surgery and Neurotraumatology, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
A KramerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
S ThavarajasingamDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
A WengertBG Unfallklinik, Center for Spinal Surgery and Neurotraumatology, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
P SchleicherBG Unfallklinik, Center for Spinal Surgery and Neurotraumatology, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
A PingelBG Unfallklinik, Center for Spinal Surgery and Neurotraumatology, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
F KandzioraBG Unfallklinik, Center for Spinal Surgery and Neurotraumatology, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The optimal operative approach for treating spinal infections remains a subject of debate. Corpectomy and Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) have emerged as common modalities, yet data on their feasibility and complication profiles are limited. Methods: This retrospective single-center study examined 100 consecutive cases (2015-2022) that underwent VBR for spinal infection treatment. A comparison between Single-level-VBR and Multi-level-VBR was performed, evaluating patient profiles, revision rates, and outcomes. Results: Among 360 cases treated for spinal infections, 100 underwent VBR, located in all spinal regions. Average clinical and radiologic follow-up spanned 1.5 years. Single-level-VBR was performed in 60 cases, Two-level-VBR in 37, Three-level-VBR in 2, and Four-level-VBR in one case.Mean overall sagittal correction reached 10° (range 0-54°), varying by region. Revision surgery was required in 31 cases. Aseptic mechanical complications (8% pedicle screw loosening, 3% cage subsidence, 6% aseptic adjacent disc disease) were prominent reasons for revision. Longer posterior constructs (>4 levels) had significantly higher revision rates (p < 0.01). General complications (wound healing, hematoma) followed, along with infection relapse and adjacent disc infection (9%) and neurologic impairment (1%).Multilevel-VBR (≥2 levels) displayed no elevated cage subsidence rate compared to Single-level-VBR. Three deaths occurred (43-86 days post-op), all in the Multi-level-VBR group. Conclusion: This study, reporting the largest number of VBR cases for spinal infection treatment, affirmed VBR's effectiveness in sagittal imbalance correction. The overall survival was high, while reinfection rates matched other surgical studies. Anterior procedures have minimal implant related risks, but extended dorsal instrumentation elevates revision surgery likelihood.

Indexed as

Cage subsidenceMultilevel corpectomySpinal infectionSpondylodiscitisVertebral body resectionVertebral osteomyelitis

Identifiers

PMID38510622
PMCPMC10951701
OpenAlexW4389166542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.