ArticleNeurospine2025
Anterior Corpectomy Versus Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation With 5.5-mm Rods for Metastatic Spinal Tumor Located in the Cervicothoracic Junction.
Article in Neurospine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the efficacy of posterior pedicle screw fixation with 5.5-mm rods (PPSF5.5) with anterior corpectomy (AC) for metastatic cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) tumors.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included patients with CTJ tumors who underwent PPSF5.5 or AC from January 2000 to December 2023. Data collected included demographics, surgical details, clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale scores for neck or back pain, Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scale score, McCormick scale, Nurick grade, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score), radiologic results (cervical segmental Cobb angle), and surgical complications (instrumentation failure, tumor regrowth, and wound infection).
resultsThe AC group showed a tendency for short-level fusion. Patients in this group had tumors primarily located near C7 and generally confined to the vertebral body. AC was associated with more significant postoperative kyphotic changes in the index vertebra during follow-up than PPSF5.5. Moreover, AC was associated with a higher incidence of instrumentation failure, necessitating revision surgeries. Conversely, patients in the PPSF5.5 group tended to require revision surgery due to tumor regrowth.
conclusionFor CTJ metastatic tumors, PPSF5.5 provides superior resistance to forward bending and collapse prevention and minimizes instrumentation failure rate compared to AC. Moreover, AC may reduce the risk of tumor recurrence, but this approach is recommended only if the tumor is confined to the vertebral body and located at the upper level of the CTJ.
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.