ArticleMalaysian orthopaedic journal2024
Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous and Conventional Open Pedicle Screw Fixation for Single-level Thoracolumbar Spine Injury: Randomised Controlled Trial.
Article in Malaysian orthopaedic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of short- and long-term efficacy between percutaneous and open pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar vertebral fracture.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Paraspinal compartment syndrome after minimally invasive thoracolumbar fixation: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes of a novel screw placement technique for the treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures under navigation guidance.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Comparative Radiologic and Morphologic Analysis of Posterolateral Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Thoracolumbar Junction Burst Fractures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To compare post-operative outcomes of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) vs open pedicle screw fixation (OPSF) in patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures with no neurological deficits. Materials and methods: In a randomised controlled trial, patients received short-segment fixation with intermediate screws. We assessed post-operative back pain (Visual Analog Scale or VAS), blood loss, operative/fluoroscopy times, radiographic parameters, and oswestry disability index (ODI) scores at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Results: Between January 2018 and October 2019, 31 patients received PPSF and 30 OPSF. Mean intra-operative blood loss was 66.45 (±44.29) ml for PPSF vs 184.83 (±128.36) ml for OPSF (p<0.001). Fluoroscopy time averaged 2.36 (±0.76) minutes for PPSF vs 0.58 (±0.51) minutes for OPSF (p<0.001). No significant differences existed in operative time or post-operative VAS scores. Radiographic parameters (kyphosis angle and vertebral height ratios) didn't significantly differ post-operatively or at 12 months. However, ODI scores differed significantly at 6 months (p=0.025), with no difference at 12 months. Conclusion: In this trial, PPSF was comparable to OPSF in improving ODI scores at 12 months but showed earlier improvement at 6 months and reduced blood loss. Radiographic outcomes remained similar between groups over 12 months.
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.