ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Does the posterior-only approach provide adequate treatment for cervical spine metastases with severe vertebral body compromise?
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess posterior-only surgery for cervical spine metastases with severe vertebral compromise, characterized by severe compression fracture, ventral epidural compression, and extensive osteolytic destruction.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 31 patients with C1-T1 metastases meeting severe compromise criteria: compression fracture with > 50% height collapse or local kyphosis, severe ventral compression with the epidural spinal cord compression scale > 1b, or extensive osteolytic destruction involving > 50% of the vertebral body. Comprehensive clinical assessments included pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), neurological function (Frankel grading system), and performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, ECOG). Radiographic evaluation focused on cervical sagittal alignment parameters. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methodology.
resultsSignificant improvements were observed in pain (NRS: 6.1 ± 2.0 to 2.3 ± 1.2, P < 0.001), neurological function (90% of deficit patients improved ≥ 1 Frankel grade), and performance status (ECOG:3.1 ± 0.8 to 1.7 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). Cervical sagittal alignment was significantly restored in compression fracture cases. The surgical approach exhibited favorable stability with no instances of instrumentation failure during follow-up. Survival analysis indicated median overall survival of 11.0 months, with survival rates of 87.1%, 67.7%, and 48.4% at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, respectively.
conclusionThe posterior-only surgical approach can effectively addresses severe vertebral body compromise in cervical metastases, providing durable pain relief, neurological preservation, and stability with acceptable morbidity. Future studies should develop evidence-based algorithms integrating tumor characteristics and patient factors to guide surgical decisions in metastatic cervical spine disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40664821What 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.