ArticleInfection and drug resistance2024
Retrospective Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Spinal Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Lesion Removal and Posterior Pedicle Lesion Removal, Bone Grafting, Internal Fixation and Surgery Combined with Medical Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Spinal Tuberculosis and Brucellosis.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a nomogram for differential diagnosis of pyogenic spondylitis and tuberculous spondylitis in China: a multicenter retrospective study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating lumbar spinal brucellosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Endoscopic Lesion Resection and Posterior Lesion Debridement, Bone Grafting, Fusion and Internal Fixation Combined With Medication in the Treatment of Lumbar Brucellosis Spondylitis.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of minimally invasive endoscopic versus conventional open posterior brucellosis lesion removal in the treatment of brucellosis spondylitis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of endoscopic removal of spinal infections and posterior pedicle surgery, including bone grafting, fixation, and chemotherapy, and to outline preventive strategies for complications, offering guidance for clinical practice. Methods: 128 spinal infectious disease patients (2018-2022) were categorized into Group A (endoscopic removal, n=44) and Group B (posterior pedicle removal+bone grafting+fixation, n=84). Pre-surgery, all received quadruple antibiotic therapy. Metrics tracked: operation time, blood loss, drainage, recovery, stay, transfusion, complications, and pre/post-surgery VAS, ODI, ESR, CRP, PCT, D-dimer, NLR, Hb, albumin. Results: (1) Preoperative data: There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, involved segments, past medical history (cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, endocrine system diseases, metabolic diseases and tuberculosis), smoking history, preoperative erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, D-dimer, lymphocyte and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, hemoglobin, total protein, waist VAS score and waist ODI score (P>0.05). (2) The main postoperative indexes were significantly lower than those of group B at the last follow-up at 3 months and the last follow-up in group A, and the difference was significant (P<0.05), the hemoglobin and total protein in group A were significantly higher than those in group B at the last postoperative follow-up (P<0.05), and the recurrence rate in group B was significantly higher than that in group A, and the difference was significant (P=0.048). (3) Postoperative secondary indicators: the amount of blood transfusion in group A was significantly lower than that in group B, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05), while the operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay in group A were significantly smaller than those in group B, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: Endoscopic lesion removal for spinal infections achieves similar safety to posterior pedicle surgery, with shorter operation time, less blood loss, lower recurrence, and reduced drainage. It enhances ESR, spine function, and pain relief, meriting promotion.
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.