ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Uniportal endoscopic decompression and debridement for infectious diseases of spine with neurological deficits: a retrospective study in China.
Article in Asian spine journal, 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.
- Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive microscopic debridement in thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Editorial comment for the special issue on endoscopic spine surgery.Asian spine journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of uniportal endoscopic decompression and debridement (UEDD) in treating infectious diseases of the spine (IDS) with neurological deficits. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: IDS patients with neurological deficits often require urgent surgical decompression. However, the efficacy of UEDD in this complex patient population is not well-characterized.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 32 consecutive IDS patients who underwent UEDD surgery. Clinical features, laboratory data (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), and treatment outcomes were analyzed.
resultsDefinite microorganisms were identified in 27 patients (84.3%), with 24 (88.9%) meeting cure criteria. The cure rate was significantly higher in the detected pathogen group compared to the undetected pathogen group (88.9% vs. 80%; χ²=19.36, p<0.0001). Metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) provided faster diagnosis (41.72±6.81 hours) compared to tissue culture (95.74±35.47 hours, p<0.05). The predominant causative pathogen was Mycobacterium tuberculosis, followed by Staphylococcus aureus. Significant improvements were observed in Visual Analog Scale pain scores, from a mean of 7.9 preoperatively to 1.06 at 1 year postoperatively. The Oswestry Disability Index revealed a similar trend, showing significant improvement (p<0.05).
conclusionsUEDD is a viable alternative to traditional open surgery for managing IDS in high-risk patients. UEDD offers a dual therapeutic-diagnostic advantage during the initial admission phase, enabling simultaneous debridement, neurological decompression, and targeted biopsy in a single intervention. Compared with traditional tissue culture, mNGS enables rapid microbiological diagnosis and extensive pathogen coverage.
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.