ArticleCureus2026
Primary High-Grade Spinal Sarcomas: A Retrospective Review of 10 Cases.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAggressive surgical resection with adequate margins is associated with improved local control and survival in selected patients with primary spinal sarcomas. However, anatomical constraints often preclude complete resection, and outcomes for unresectable tumors remain poor. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare oncological and functional outcomes between patients with primary spinal sarcomas who underwent surgical resection with reconstruction and those who were managed without resection.
methodsTen patients with primary spinal sarcomas treated between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Six patients underwent surgical resection with spinal reconstruction (R group), and four were treated without resection (N group). The mean age was 51.8 years (range, 15-71 years) in the R group and 73.0 years (range, 53-91 years) in the N group. Clinical variables, recurrence, metastasis, overall survival (OS), and activities of daily living (ADL), including ambulatory status, were evaluated. OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.
resultsTumor size at initial presentation was comparable between the groups (48.3 mm (range, 24 mm-68 mm) in the R group and 48.8 mm (range, 38mm-75 mm) in the N group). Metastases occurred in three patients (50%) in the R group and three patients (75%) in the N group. Two patients (33%) in the R group remained disease-free, whereas all patients in the N group died during follow-up. The five-year OS rate was 60% in the R group and 0% in the N group, with no significant difference (p=0.23). Ambulatory function was preserved in five patients (83%) in the R group and one patient (25%) in the N group.
conclusionsAlthough a definitive survival benefit could not be demonstrated, surgical resection with reconstruction was associated with superior postoperative functional outcomes, suggesting a role in preserving ambulation and quality of life in patients with primary spinal sarcomas.
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.