SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Surgical failures and revision strategies in Basilar invagination: an exploratory analysis of 145 published cases.
Synthesis 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, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBasilar invagination (BI) is a congenital or acquired anomaly of the craniovertebral junction, often accompanied by atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD), Chiari malformation, and syringomyelia, leading to brainstem and cervical spinal cord compression. Surgical failures typically result from inadequate ventral decompression or failure to achieve craniovertebral stability, necessitating technically demanding revision procedures. However, evidence regarding revision strategies and their outcomes remains limited. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the primary procedures associated with failure, characterize revision techniques, and compare outcomes and complications across surgical strategies.
methodWe conducted a systematic review analyzing 145 patients from 14 studies who underwent revision surgery for BI. Eligible studies reported both the failed primary surgery and revision outcomes. Data on demographics, prior procedures, revision techniques, radiological and neurological outcomes, and complications were extracted and analyzed descriptively.
resultsPosterior fossa decompression (PFD) was the most common failed initial procedure (92/145, 63.4%), followed by occipitocervical fusion (OCF) (35/145, 24.1%), posterior C1-C2 fixation (12/145, 8.3%), and anterior decompression (6/145, 4.1%). The leading cause of revision was structural failure or persistent instability (95/145, 65.5%), particularly after PFD (41.4%) and OCF (16.6%). Revision surgerier focusing stabilization achieved neurological improvement and optimal radiological alignment in 116 patients (80%). The procedures with the highest success rates were seen with anterior decompression (51/145, 35.2%), posterior C1-C2 fixation (37/145, 25.5%), and OCF (28/145, 19.3%). Overall, the complications were low, with 73.8% of patients experiencing no adverse events following revision.
conclusionSurgical failures in BI are predominantly due to inadequate stabilization following decompression-alone procedures. Revision strategies that restore craniovertebral stability provide the best outcomes, highlighting the need for comprehensive, stability-focused surgical planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41175211What 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.