ArticleBrain & spine2025
Surgical strategies for radical resections in subaxial cervical spine tumors.
Article in Brain & spine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radical resection of subaxial cervical spine tumors is challenging. This study evaluates outcomes following these extensive procedures. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 24 patients (mean age 38.8 yrs) treated (2002-2022) for subaxial cervical tumors (8 benign, 10 primary malignant, 6 metastatic). Procedures included total en bloc spondylectomy (TES, n = 9), total piecemeal spondylectomy (TPS, n = 6), and en bloc tumor resection (ETR, n = 9). Outcomes assessed included radiographic fusion, functional status (Visual Analog Scale [VAS]/Neck Disability Index [NDI]), complications, local recurrence, and survival. Paired t-tests and Kaplan-Meier/log-rank tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Mean follow-up was 62 months. Benign tumor patients (ETR) experienced no recurrences or major complications and showed significant VAS/NDI improvement (p < 0.05). Primary malignant tumor patients (TES/TPS/ETR) had no local recurrence but suffered higher mortality (6/10 deaths; 4 disease-related) and complications (vertebral artery injury, cerebrospinal fluid leak, nerve injury), along with significant VAS/NDI improvement (p < 0.05). Metastatic tumor patients (TES/TPS) had no local recurrence or intraoperative complications; 50 % of these patients died from systemic disease. Significant VAS/NDI improvement was also achieved (p < 0.05). Radiographic fusion was confirmed in all the patients where bone grafts were applied (n = 21). Overall survival differed significantly by tumor type (p = 0.0395), with a significant trend across groups (p = 0.0340). Conclusion: Radical resection for selected subaxial cervical tumors achieved high fusion rates, significant functional improvement, and excellent local tumor control. However, inherent risks of severe complications exist, particularly with malignant tumors. Survival varied significantly by histology. Current data preclude definitive conclusions on the comparative oncological efficacy of en bloc versus piecemeal techniques.
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.