ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
En Bloc Resection of Thoracic and Upper Lumbar Spinal Tumors Using a Novel Rotation-Reversion Technique through Posterior-Only Approach.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 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.
- Clinical Decision Making and Outcomes of Sagittal Vertebral Resection: A Head-to-Head Comparison With Total Vertebral Resection.Neurospine · 2026Article
- Total en bloc spondylectomy with artificial vertebral body replacement for thoracic spinal hydatidosis with hepatic involvement: a case report and literature review.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: En bloc resection is recommended for the treatment of malignant and aggressive benign spinal tumors; however, it often requires a combined anterior-posterior approach, which is usually accompanied by longer surgical duration, increased blood loss, larger trauma, and surgical complexity. The present study describes a novel rotation-reversion technique for en bloc resection of the thoracic and upper lumbar spinal tumors using a posterior-only approach and evaluate its safety and efficacy. Methods: Thirteen patients with thoracic and upper lumbar (L1-L3) spinal tumors were treated with en bloc resection using the rotation-reversion technique through a posterior-only approach at our institution between 2015 and 2023. The clinical characteristics and surgical results of the patients were reviewed and analyzed. Results: Posterior-only en bloc resection was performed successfully in all 13 patients using the rotation-reversion technique, with a median follow-up of 30.4 months (range, 6-74 months). The average maximum size of these 13 tumors was 5.7 × 5.8 × 4.8 cm. The mean operation time and blood loss were 458.5 minutes (range, 220-880 minutes) and 3,146.2 mL (range, 1,000-6,000 mL), respectively, with 4 of the 13 patients (30.8%) experiencing perioperative complications. Negative margins were achieved in all the 13 patients (100%). One patient experienced local recurrence (7.7%) and 1 patient experienced instrumentation failures. Interbody fusion was confirmed in 11 of the 13 patients (84.6%), with a median fusion time of 6.9 months. All of the 13 patients experienced varying degrees of mild postoperative neurological deficits owing to resection of the nerve roots affected by tumor invasion of the vertebrae. No vessel injury or postoperative neurological paralysis occurred, except 1 patient who had been completely paralyzed before surgery. Conclusions: The rotation-reversion technique is an effective procedure for en bloc resection of selected thoracic and upper lumbar spinal tumors through the posterior-only approach.
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.