ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Comparison of microscopic full-laminectomy (open surgery) and microendoscopic minimally invasive hemilaminectomy for thoracic extramedullary spinal tumours.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive treatments for spinal cord tumours are common. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients with thoracic extramedullary spinal tumours (TEST) treated by microendoscopic minimally invasive surgery-hemilaminectomy through a homemade tubular retractor (MIS-TR) and microscopic full laminectomy (open surgery).
methodsBetween February 2016 and February 2021, 51 patients with TEST were included. According to their clinical data, patients were classified into the MIS-TR group (n = 30) and the open surgery group (n = 21) and assessed.
resultsIn both groups, the mean operation time, change in perioperative ASIA score, and modified Macnab score were comparable. The average postoperative hospital stay in the MIS-TR group was substantially shorter than that in the open surgery group (p < 0.0001). The mean blood loss volume in the MIS-TR group was substantially lower than that in the open surgery group (p = 0.001). The perioperative complication rate in the MIS-TR group was considerably lower than that in the open surgery group (p < 0.0001). At the 3-month follow-up, there was no substantial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score improvement between the two groups. Nonetheless, at the 12-month follow-up, the average ODI in the MIS-TR group was considerably lower than that in the open surgery group (p = 0.023). The main influencing factors for complete postoperative recovery were preoperative ASIA score (OR 7.848, P = 0.002), surgical complications (OR 0.017, P = 0.008) and age (OR 0.974, P = 0.393).
conclusionsMIS-TR is safer and more effective than open surgery for treating TEST, but the long-term recovery of MIS-TR is not better than that of open surgery.
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.