ArticleSurgical neurology international2024
Adhesive surface electrodes versus needle-based neuromonitoring in lumbar spinal surgery.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 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.
- Comparison of subdermal needle and surface adhesive electrodes for intraoperative neuromonitoring during spine surgeries.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The relative safety and more widespread utility of an adhesive surface electrode-based neuromonitoring (ABM) system may reduce the time and cost of traditional needle-based neuromonitoring (NBM). Methods: This retrospective cohort review included one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures (2019-2023). The primary variables studied included were time (in minutes) from patient entry into the operating room (OR) to incision, time from patient entry into the OR to closure, and time from incision to closure. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to compare the outcomes between the ABM (31 patients) and NBM (51 patients) modalities. Results: We found no significant differences in the time from patient entry into the OR to incision (ABM: 71.8, NBM: 70.3, Conclusion: The introduction of the ABM system did not lower surgical time but did demonstrate similar efficacy and clinical outcomes, with reduced clinical invasiveness, neurophysiologist-associated workforce, and overall neuromonitoring cost compared to NBM.
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.