ArticleBMC surgery2026
Clinical efficacy of non-standard spine surgery implants in Malawi's challenging environment.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of using non-standard spinal implants by the China Medical Team in the treatment of spinal diseases in Malawi, a resource-limited setting.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 120 patients who had spine surgery in Kamuzu Central Hospital in Lilongwe, Malawi, from December 2022 to January 2024. Disease types, surgical approaches, and the non-standard spinal implants used were recorded. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and functional status using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Imaging was used to evaluate implant position, spinal stability, and bone fusion. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were also recorded.
resultsThe 120 patients (69 males, 51 females; mean age 50.6 ± 10.4 years) included 58 with degenerative disease, 44 with spinal fractures, and 18 with spinal infections. Thirty-one patients underwent anterior-only, 63 posterior-only, and 26 combined anterior–posterior procedures. VAS and ODI scores improved significantly during follow-up. Most implants remained in a satisfactory position, with maintained spinal stability. One patient had a plate breakage 4 months after surgery. At 6 months, about 80% of patients had radiological evidence of fusion, and by 1 year all but the patient with plate breakage had achieved bony union. No severe intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred; five patients had mild infections that resolved with antibiotics.
conclusionIn a resource-limited environment, using alternative spinal internal fixation implants may be a feasible option. However, definitive conclusions on safety and efficacy cannot be drawn due to the study's retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of a control group. Future prospective, controlled studies are needed to validate these findings before broader application.
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.