ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Outcomes of patients with cervical spine metastasis treated with different surgical approaches-decision based on location.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe low incidence of cervical metastases and complex anatomical structure of cervical spine complicate surgical strategy formulation and make it controversial. By summarizing and analyzing clinical data of patients with metastatic cervical spine tumors, this study aims to investigate treatment decisions of separation surgery and outcomes of different approaches to provide clinical evidence and references.
methodsFor atlantoaxial metastases, occipitocervical fixation with decompression (OPFD) was performed. In cases involving lower cervical spine, anterior cervical corpectomy (ACCP) or posterior cervical fixation with decompression (PCFD) was performed. When both vertebral body and appendices were affected, the choice of approach was based on surgeons’ personal preference and patient’s specific condition. Baseline characteristics, clinical manifestations, surgical approach, perioperative complications, and postoperative outcomes, including neurological function, pain level, and survival were compared between the surgical approaches.
resultsThe most common symptom was neck pain (116/124). Twenty-three patients underwent posterior OPFD, 47 patients underwent ACCP, and 42 patients underwent PCFD. There were no significant differences in perioperative complications, and postoperative therapy among patients with lower cervical metastases. For cases with simultaneous involvement of vertebral body and appendices, patients who underwent PCFD had significantly longer survival than those who underwent ACCP (29.4 ± 14.9 vs. 19.7 ± 12.5, p = 0.028). The same phenomenon was observed in other two comparisons. All patients experienced varying degrees of pain relief with those undergoing posterior approach demonstrating significantly greater pain relief (p < 0.05). No neurological deterioration was observed postoperatively. Perioperative complication rate was 26.6%. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that surgical approach was independent risk factors for survival.
conclusionFor patients with cervical metastases, we made treatment decisions based on the specific location of tumor and requirements of separation surgery to ensure that patients receive subsequent comprehensive therapy. The discernible differences between surgical approaches were that patients who underwent posterior approach tended to have more significant pain relief and longer survival.
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.