ArticleNeurospine2025
Endoscopic Decompression Combined With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for AOSpine A3 or A4 Thoracolumbar Fractures With Neurological Deficits: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Neurospine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Severe trauma care: advances and future directions in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques and information technology support.Medical review (2021) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with AOSpine A3 or A4 thoracolumbar fractures presenting with neurological deficits treated with endoscopic decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation (endoscopic minimally invasive surgery, EMIS) or conventional open surgery (OS).
methodsData of patients with AOSpine A3 or A4 thoracolumbar fractures with neurological deficits who were treated with EMIS or OS between June 2019 and July 2021 were extracted from the electronic database. Various clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 cohorts.
resultsAmong the 231 patients who were followed up for more than 2 years, 107 were in the EMIS cohort and 124 were in the OS cohort. Compared with the OS cohort, the EMIS cohort had longer operative time (p<0.05), but the intraoperative blood loss, incision length and hospital stay were significantly reduced (p<0.05). At both postoperative and final follow-up assessments, the EMIS cohort demonstrated significantly better visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes compared to the OS cohort (p<0.05). Both cohorts maintained similar correction of spinal canal erosion rate, percentage of anterior vertebral height and sagittal Cobb angle after surgery and at the last follow-up (p>0.05). According to American Spinal Injury Association classification, the 2 cohorts had similar neurological recovery at the last follow-up (p>0.05).
conclusionIn comparison to OS, EMIS treatment for AOSpine A3 or A4 thoracolumbar fractures with neurological deficits has shown comparable clinical efficacy while significantly reducing surgical trauma.
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.