ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2024
Outcomes of Dorsolumbar and Lumbar Spinal Tuberculosis Treated by Minimally Invasive and Open Techniques: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of Study: To compare the outcomes of minimally invasive and open techniques in the surgical management of dorsolumbar and lumbar spinal tuberculosis (STB). Methods: Skeletally mature patients with active STB involving thoracolumbar and lumbar region confirmed by radiology (X-ray, MRI) and histopathological examination were included. Healed and mechanically stable STB, patients having severe hepatic and renal impairment, coexisting spinal conditions such as ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis, and patients unwilling to participate were excluded from the study. The patients were divided in to two groups, group A consisted of patients treated by MIS techniques and group B consisted of patients treated by open techniques. All the patients had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Results: A total of 42 patients were included in the study. MIS techniques were used in 18 patients and open techniques were used in 24 patients. On comparison between the two groups, blood loss (234 ml vs 742 ml), and immediate post-operative VAS score (5.26 vs 7.08) were significantly better in group A, whereas kyphotic correction (16° vs 33.25°) was significantly better in group B. Rest of the parameters such as duration of surgery, VAS score, ODI score and number of instrumented levels did not show significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: MIS stabilization when compared to open techniques is associated with significant improvement in immediate post-operative VAS scores. The MIS approaches at 2-year follow-up have functional results similar to open techniques. MIS is inferior to open techniques in kyphosis correction and may be associated with complications.
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.