SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage for spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations of the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2025 on Spinal Infections: Part A Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Endoscopic spine surgery across the pediatric pathological spectrum: A systematic review of indications, techniques, and outcomes.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal infections (SI) typically manifest with and pose a growing medical challenge. However, current evidence for treating SI is limited and inconclusive. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic disc decompression (PEDD) for SI.
methodsOn 20 October 2023, we searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine Disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases for eligible studies. Cohort studies on SI treated with PEDD, reporting relevant effectiveness or safety outcomes. We assessed study quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled results.
resultsOverall, 36 studies involving 925 patients were included. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels decreased significantly at 1-week postoperatively compared with preoperative levels (mean difference [MD] = - 13.48 [95% CI - 15.65 to - 11.31]) and continued to decrease over 3 months. Similarly, the c-reactive protein (CRP), visual analogue scale, and oswestry disability index scores significantly reduced postoperatively. The rates of excellent or good MacNab classification were 92.6% (95% CI 84.1-98.1%). Microbiological diagnostics revealed a 71.7% (95% CI 65.5-77.6%) positive rate in tissue cultures, surpassing blood cultures (odds ratio [OR] 2.72 [95% CI 1.01-7.30]). The rates of complication, reoperation, and mortality were 4.1% (95% CI 1.5-8.0%), 8.6% (95% CI 4.3-14.3%), and 1.7% (95% CI 0.4-4.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly lower reoperation rate in the group that discontinued antibiotics based on a normal CRP than in the fixed-duration group (2.7% [95% CI 0.3-7.7%] vs 20.1% [95% CI 14.5-26.3%], p = 0.0002). Conversely, ambulation 1 day postoperatively was associated with a higher reoperation rate than ambulation within 5-14 days (16.2% [95% CI 9.3-24.6%] vs 1.1% [95% CI 0.0-6.0%], p = 0.0060).
conclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that PEDD is a potentially effective and safe intervention for SI. Optimizing antibiotic discontinuation and postoperative care strategies may contribute to reducing reoperation rate. However, these findings require further validation from controlled studies.
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.