ReviewHeliyon2025
Pharyngeal perforations after anterior cervical spinal procedures: A systematic review.
Review in Heliyon, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digestive system perforations after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS), if left untreated, are life-threatening. These injuries are often categorized as pharyngoesophageal. Although the pharynx and esophagus are continuations of each other, they are two distinct anatomical structures. There is limited experience in managing patients with pharyngeal injuries after ACSS. Methods: Using PRISMA guidelines, a PubMed search was conducted on the iatrogenic pharyngeal perforations after ACSS for the treatment of disc herniation and degenerative cervical myeloradiculopathy. Results: A total of 12 patients met our inclusion criteria. Eleven were from published studies, and one was our patient (2 female and 10 male, mean age = 56.25 years, range: 31-82 years). Clinical symptoms of patients with iatrogenic pharyngeal perforation after ACSS varied depending on whether the cases present early or late after surgery. Although clinical symptoms suggested a pharynx or esophageal injury, definitive diagnosis was challenging. All cases diagnosed either early or late after ACSS underwent surgical repair treatment, except for one case managed conservatively with antibiotics and nasogastric feeding. The overall outcome was favorable for all patients. However, the postoperative follow-up duration was not specified in two cases. In the remaining 10 cases, postoperative follow-up durations were generally short and varied significantly (mean = 4.87 months, median = 1.75 months, range:1 week-24 months). Conclusion: Iatrogenic pharyngeal injuries resulting from ACSS are extremely rare. They are relatively straightforward to diagnose and can be managed with a multidisciplinary approach. However, their long-term prognosis remains unknown.
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.