ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Spinal gunshot wounds: A systematic review of the literature.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The appropriate management of spinal gunshot wounds (GSWs) remains controversial. This systematic review presents an overview of the available scientific evidence in the literature regarding efficacy and complication rates of surgical management and antibiotic prophylaxis for spinal GSWs. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed/Medline was conducted, with a screening of articles for low-velocity civilian spinal GSWs. Collected information included patient demographics, injury description, management decision, outcomes of surgical versus conservative management, and the incidence of intra and extraspinal infections with prophylactic antibiotic use. Improvement was defined as the recovery of 1 or more ASIA levels. Statistical analysis involved chi-squared analysis and meta-analysis where feasible. Results: Thirty-four retrospective cohort studies were included. About 11% of patients were treated surgically whereas 89% were treated conservatively. Of the surgically managed patients, 88% received decompression, and only 11% received stabilization. Surgically managed patients had similar rates of neurological improvement in comparison to conservative treatment (95% CI -0.99, 13.45; p = .06), but 7% higher complication rate which was statistically significant (95% CI 0.66, 13.10; p = .02). Intraspinal infection rates were similar between the prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis groups (95% CI 1.12, 3.23; p = .35). However, the prophylaxis cohort had a higher rate of extraspinal infections (95% CI 34.82, 50.14; p < .01). Conclusions: An understanding of the factors which impact decision-making in spinal GSWs is of paramount importance. We found no statistically significant difference in neurological recovery between surgically and conservatively treated patients, although surgical patients had a statistically higher rate of complications. The possible deleterious effects of antibiotic prophylaxis on extraspinal infections warrants further research regarding confounding factors and which antibiotics regimens may be implicated.
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.