SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Outcomes and adverse events for spinal synovial cysts surgical treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal synovial cysts (SSCs) are a rare cause of nerve root and spinal cord compression. Surgical excision of SSCs remains the mainstay of treatment in the presence of unremitting symptoms or neurological deficits, but the choice of the surgical approach remains controversial. The goal of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and adverse events associated with traditional approaches (interlaminar or laminectomy/hemilaminectomy) and minimally invasive approaches (microsurgical tubular approaches or endoscopic approaches) for SSCs.
methodsStudies reporting surgical management of SSCs were searched in three online databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science). This meta-analysis was reported following the PRISMA Statement. It was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021288992). The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias in Nonrandomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to evaluate bias. Extracted research data were statistically analyzed using Stata 16 and SPSS statistics 25.
resultsA total of 22 related relevant studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in dural tear, residual cyst, recurrence, reoperation, and operation time between minimally invasive approaches and traditional approaches (p > 0.05), but minimally invasive approaches had a good functional improvement (p = 0.004). Postoperative length of hospital stays and intraoperative bleeding in traditional approaches were also higher than in minimally invasive approaches (p < 0.05).
conclusionBased on the available evidence, minimally invasive approaches may be better than traditional approaches in the treatment of SSCs. Minimally invasive approaches had the advantages of improving clinical satisfaction, with a similar complication rate to traditional approaches. Moreover, endoscopic and microsurgical tubular approaches had similar outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39039314What 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.