SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for intraspinal tumors: a meta-analysis based on 15 observational studies.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Does surgical approach or preoperative deformity better predict outcomes in thoracolumbar fractures? A comparative study of minimally invasive versus open techniques.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
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
objectivesThis study compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for patients with intraspinal tumors.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. Continuous variables, including estimated blood loss, surgery duration, time to mobilization, length of hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and incision length, were reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Dichotomous variables, such as gross total resection, blood transfusion, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, and overall complications, were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.
resultsFifteen studies, comprising a total of 943 patients (488 in the MIS group and 455 in the OS group), met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated that MIS significantly reduced estimated blood loss (MD = -76.73, 95% CI -102.56 to -50.91, P < 0.01), incision length (MD = -4.09, 95% CI -5.20 to -2.97, P < 0.01), VAS score (MD = -0.79, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.11, P = 0.02), time to mobilization (MD = -4.27, 95% CI -5.12 to -3.43, P < 0.01), length of hospitalization, (MD = -3.94, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.84, P < 0.01), and overall complications (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, P < 0.01) compared with OS. No significant differences were observed in surgery duration (MD = -28.67, 95% CI -58.58 to 1.23, P = 0.06), gross total resection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07, P = 0.92), blood transfusion (RR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.04, P = 0.06), or CSF leakage (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04, P = 0.07).
conclusionFindings from this analysis suggest that MIS offers clinical advantages over OS in reducing blood loss, incision length, pain, time to mobilization, length of hospitalization, and overall complication rates.
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.