ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Comparative Efficacy of Endoscopic Lesion Resection and Posterior Lesion Debridement, Bone Grafting, Fusion and Internal Fixation Combined With Medication in the Treatment of Lumbar Brucellosis Spondylitis.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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.
- Brucella Infection of the Sternoclavicular Joint with Innovative Localized Drug Delivery: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy analysis of one-stage posterior debridement, bone graft fusion, and internal fixation for the treatment of lumbar brucellosis spondylitis.BMC surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study intends to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar brucellosis with traditional posterior focus debridement, bone grafting, fusion and internal fixation combined with drugs in the treatment of lumbar brucellosis, and summarize the advantages and disadvantages of different surgical methods, in order to provide theoretical support for clinical surgical decision-making. Methods: The data of 41 lumbar brucellosis patients admitted to the Department of spinal Surgery of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 2018 to June 2023 were divided into endoscopic group (Group A, n = 15) and open surgery group (Group B, n = 26). Two groups of general data, surgical and related indicators, blood biochemical and imaging indicators were recorded and analyzed, and the clinical recovery and complications were evaluated according to various scores. Results: There was no statistical difference in baseline data between Group A and Group B, and it could be compared between the two groups; the postoperative lumbar VAS score and hemoglobin index of Group A were significantly better than that of Group B, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); Group A was significantly better than Group B in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative time to go down, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups in other indicators (P>0.05). Conclusion: The two types of lumbar brucellosis treatment are safe and effective, and the clinical effect of endoscopic surgery is outstanding, which is more conducive to the postoperative rehabilitation of patients. It is recommended when conditions permit.
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.