SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Effectiveness of percutaneous cervical cordotomy in intractable cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severe, treatment-resistant pain is a significant challenge for patients with cancer. Percutaneous Cervical Cordotomy (PCC) is an effective but underutilized procedure for managing severe cancer-related pain. PCC works by interrupting pain transmission through targeted lesioning of the lateral spinothalamic tract. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCC in treating cancer-related pain. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials evaluating PCC in cancer pain management. Studies were included if they reported outcomes on: (1) pain reduction (assessed via pain scales); (2) reduction in opioid use; (3) changes in Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS); and (4) adverse effects. 3A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials evaluating PCC in cancer pain management. Studies were included if they reported outcomes on: (1) pain reduction (assessed via pain scales); (2) reduction in opioid use; (3) changes in Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS); and (4) adverse effects. Results: Fourteen studies involving 837 patients were includedfor meta-analysis. For short-term pain relief (<1 month follow-up), 4 studies (n=181) showed a pooled mean reduction of 7.99 points on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (95% CI: 5.35-8.65; I²=99.9%). For long-term pain relief (≥1 month follow-up), 4 studies (n=365) reported a pooled mean reduction of 7.79 points on the VAS/Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (95% CI: 6.76-8.82; I²=99.7%). Functional improvement, assessed in 6 studies (n=300), demonstrated a pooled mean increase of 12.11 points in KPS (95% CI: 0.09-24.13; I²=99.9%). Opioid consumption, reported in 6 studies (n=318), decreased by a pooled mean of 243.16 mg of morphine equivalents (95% CI: 45.05-441.27; I²=99.8%). The pooled incidence of adverse events across 13 studies was 23.64% (95% CI: 8.42-51.03%), with high heterogeneity (I²=91.6%). Fourteen studies involving 837 patients were includedfor meta-analysis. For short-term pain relief (< 1 month follow-up), 4 studies (n = 181) showed a pooled mean reduction of 7.99 points on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (95% CI: 5.35-8.65; I²=99.9%). For long-term pain relief (≥ 1 month follow-up), 4 studies (n = 365) reported a pooled mean reduction of 7.79 points on the VAS/Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (95% CI: 6.76-8.82; I²=99.7%). Functional improvement, assessed in 6 studies (n = 300), demonstrated a pooled mean increase of 12.11 points in KPS (95% CI: 0.09-24.13; I²=99.9%). Opioid consumption, reported in 6 studies (n = 318), decreased by a pooled mean of 243.16 mg of morphine equivalents (95% CI: 45.05-441.27; I²=99.8%). The pooled incidence of adverse events across 13 studies was 23.64% (95% CI: 8.42-51.03%), with high heterogeneity (I²=91.6%). PCC is an effective intervention for alleviating severe cancer-related pain, significantly reducing opioid requirements and improving functional status. Despite a notable incidence of adverse events, PCC remains a valuable option for patients with refractory cancer pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412137What 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.