SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Efficacy and safety of en-bloc resection versus debulking for spinal tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes and Technical Considerations: Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Primary Spinal Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted "Postage-Stamp" Vertebrotomy for Spinal Tumor Resection: Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development of Core Outcome Set for Integrative Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Clinical Research in Spinal Metastases (COS-TCM-SM).Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma of the thoracolumbar spine: A case-based review of a rare cause of vertebral collapse and neurological deficit.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- The Radiologists' Guide to Spinal Separation Surgery: What Does the Surgeon Want to Know?Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma in the thoracic spine treated with en bloc spondylectomy via staged anterior-lateral and posterior approach: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Analysis of Early Post-Radiation Surgical Management of Metastatic Spinal Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Biomechanical and clinical comparison of different prosthetic in reconstruction following totalFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to consolidate the existing evidence regarding the comparison between en-bloc resection surgery and debulking surgery for spinal tumors, including both primary and metastatic tumors. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, Web of Science, Scopus, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP Database (VIP), and Wan Fang Database was carried out and included all studies that directly compared en-bloc resection surgery with debulking surgery for spinal tumors in patients through March 2024. The primary outcomes included recurrence rate, postoperative metastasis rate, mortality rate, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), complication, and so on. The statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.
resultsWe systematically reviewed 868 articles and included 27 studies involving 1135 patients who underwent either en-bloc resection surgery (37.89%) or debulking surgery (62.11%). Our meta-analysis demonstrated significant advantages of en-bloc resection over debulking surgery. Specifically, the en-bloc resection group had a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.13-0.28, P < 0.00001), lower postoperative metastasis rate (P = 0.002), and lower mortality rate (P < 0.00001). Additionally, en-bloc resection could improve OS and RFS (HR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.32-0.62, P < 0.00001 and HR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17-0.80, P = 0.01, respectively). However, en-bloc resection required longer operative times and was associated with a higher overall complication rate compared to debulking surgery (P = 0.0005 and P < 0.00001, respectively).
conclusionThe current evidence indicates that en-bloc surgical resection can effectively control tumor recurrence and mortality, as well as improve RFS and OS for patients with spinal tumors. However, it is crucial not to overlook the potential risks of perioperative complications. Ultimately, these findings should undergo additional validation through multi-center, double-blind, and large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
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.