ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Microscopically-assisted Uninstrumented Surgical Tumor Decompression as an alternative to open surgery for symptomatic metastatic epidural spinal cord compression.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The current standard of care recommends spinal tumor decompression surgery prior to radiation. However, the differences in open Methods: This single-institution retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent either standard open decompression with instrumented fusion (Control) or MIS with vertebrectomy and cement augmentation (MUST-D) for MESCC decompression from November 2006 to June 2016. Demographic, surgical, and follow-up data were extracted from medical records. The inclusion criteria were radiographic evidence of MESCC, pathology-confirmed spinal metastasis, and symptoms of vertebral instability or neural compression. Outcomes included length of operation, anesthesia duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, complications, time until radiation therapy (RTx), Hauser Ambulation Index (HAI), Cobb angle, mortality, and survival. Results: Among 59 MESCC surgeries, 21 (36%) had MUST-D and 38 (64%) had open surgery (60.8 Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the MUST-D technique provides surgical advantages compared to standard open surgery for MESCC, with significant improvement in perioperative outcomes. Although both groups had similar 1-year mortality, the MUST-D cohort demonstrated shorter time to RTx, faster postoperative ambulation, improved 30-day ambulatory function, similar index level revision rates, and longer time to death compared to open procedures. With no inferior outcome recorded in our study, the MUST-D technique is observed as an improvement over standard approach. Thus, we propose the MUST-D technique as an alternative treatment modality for symptomatic MESCC decompression. Larger randomized prospective studies with robust clinical correlation are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.