Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41682772›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026

Using Endoscopic Approaches in the Surgical Management of Spinal Metastatic Disease.

Whitney E Muhlestein, Samuel A Tenhoeve, Mark A Mahan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Surgical management of spinal metastases].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Whitney E MuhlesteinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2801-2081
Samuel A TenhoeveSpencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-9751-3724
Mark A MahanSpencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9777-4701

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with spinal metastasis often benefit from surgical intervention for debulking to improve neurologic deficits, reduce spinal cord or root compression, and ameliorate pain. Traditionally, large, open fusions have been used to achieve adequate decompression of neural structures. These types of interventions are frequently associated with significant blood loss, prolonged hospitalizations, and increased risk of surgery-related complications, which can delay postoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapies. Endoscopic spine approaches allow access to the spinal cord and nerve roots with minimal soft tissue disruption, which has been shown to reduce risks associated with open surgery in other contexts. Furthermore, the smaller incision, reduced blood loss, ability to position incisions away from radiation fields, and lower risk profile in high-risk patients may provide an effective solution to spinal metastases in appropriately selected cases. Here, we present two cases of spinal metastases successfully managed with spinal endoscopy and recommend the consideration of this approach for similar scenarios.

Indexed as

endoscopic spine surgerymetastasisminimally invasivespine

Identifiers

PMID41682772
PMCPMC12898753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.