SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
En-bloc resection for spinal giant cell tumors: superior outcomes-a comprehensive meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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.
- Transoral Resection of a Giant Cell Tumor in the Odontoid With Cementoplasty: A Technical Case Report.Neurosurgery practice · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal giant cell tumors (GCTs) management primarily involves surgical resection; however, the optimal surgical approach continues to be a subject of debate. This study aims to comprehensively compare the efficacy of en-bloc resection with that of control resection techniques, specifically intralesional curettage and piecemeal resection, in the treatment of spinal GCTs. A comprehensive search of English databases, including the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, as well as Chinese databases such as the National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (VIP), and Wan Fang, was conducted up to January 2024. This search identified twelve studies encompassing 492 participants. The meta-analysis indicated that en-bloc resection significantly reduces recurrence rates (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.15-0.47, P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.88, P = 0.04) when compared to control resection techniques. Notably, en-bloc resection demonstrated superior performance over control methods in both 1-year and 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates (P = 0.001 and P < 0.00001, respectively), as well as in overall RFS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.91; P = 0.04). Despite its advantages, en-bloc excision was associated with a higher overall complication rate (P = 0.01). Furthermore, trial sequential analysis (TSA) suggests that the current sample size is inadequate to draw definitive conclusions, thereby underscoring the necessity for further investigations. En-bloc resection shows significant advantages over control resection techniques in reducing recurrence rates, mortality, and improving RFS. However, the higher complication rates and TSA findings stress the need for more high-quality studies to verify the benefits and safety of en-bloc resection in spinal GCT treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39939368What 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.