ArticleCureus2026
Should Mini-Thoracotomy Be the Preferred Anterior Approach to the Thoracic Spine?
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives To compare the short- and mid-term surgical outcomes in patients undergoing mini-thoracotomy (MT) and conventional open thoracotomy (COT) as anterior approaches to the thoracic spine. Methods Data were collected for adults who underwent thoracic spine procedures via an anterior surgical approach for various indications at the Department of Neurosurgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB), between 2016 and 2021. Electronic medical records and clinical imaging of the patients enrolled on the study were reviewed. Primary outcomes measured were complications and post-operative pain levels. Secondary outcomes included the lengths of hospitalisation and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, estimated blood loss (EBL), duration and output of the post-operative chest drain, operation time, and radiation exposure. These outcomes were then compared between the MT and COT cohorts. The software, IBM SPSS Statistics, version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), alongside parametric and non-parametric tests, was used, with a p-value set at <0.05. Results A total of 31 patients (18 females and 13 males) with an average age of 53±15 were included. Fourteen underwent MT, while 17 had COT. There were no significant demographic differences between the cohorts. MT resulted in fewer complications, but the difference was not statistically significant. Pain levels were lower at 48 hours post-operation but higher on discharge in MT. Secondary outcome results yielded that the MT group had a statistically significant 80% shorter post-operative ICU stay than the COT group (p=0.034). Duration of the procedure and EBL were comparable in both groups. The differences between duration and output of the chest drain and post-operative opioid use favoured MT, but were not statistically significant. Conclusion Based on our study, MT is non-inferior to COT. MT seemed related to shorter post-operative ICU stay and is potentially positively associated with the other outcomes. However, studies involving larger patient cohorts are required to verify the statistical significance and clinical relevance of these observations.
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.