ArticleNeurospine2024
Comparison of Single or Double Titanium Mesh Cage for Anterior Reconstruction After Total En Bloc Spondylectomy for Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Tumors.
Article in Neurospine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 3D-printed tantalum artificial vertebral body or titanium mesh in anterior column reconstruction post-spondylectomy for thoracic vertebral tumors: a retrospective comparative cohort study and finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of anterior column reconstruction using single or double titanium mesh cage (TMC) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed involving 39 patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal tumors. All patients underwent TES, followed by anterior reconstruction and screw-rod instrumentation via a posterior-only procedure. Twenty-two patients in group A were treated with a single TMC to reconstruct the anterior column, whereas 17 patients in group B were reconstructed with double TMCs.
resultsThe overall follow-up is 20.5 ± 4.6 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, operative time, and intraoperative blood loss. The time for TMC placement was significantly shortened in the double TMCs group (5.2 ± 1.3 minutes vs. 15.6 ± 3.3 minutes, p = 0.004). Additionally, postoperative neural complications were significantly reduced with double TMCs (5/22 vs. 0/17, p = 0.046). The kyphotic Cobb angle and mean intervertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups (p ≤ 0.001), without obvious loss of correction at the last follow-up in either group. The bone fusion rates for single TMC and double TMCs were 77.3% and 76.5%, respectively.
conclusionUsing 2 smaller TMCs instead of a single large one eases the placement of TMC by shortening the time and avoiding nerve impingement. Anterior column reconstruction with double TMC is a clinically feasible, and safe alternative following TES for thoracic and lumbar tumors.
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.