ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2026
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES OF OPEN OR ENDOSCOPIC SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION: INTEGRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW.
Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 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
Introduction: Spinal cord compression is a neurological condition caused by pressure on the spinal cord, with etiologies including degenerative, neoplastic, infectious, traumatic, and malformative causes. It primarily affects the elderly, with symptoms ranging from pain and sensory-motor deficits to paralysis. The diagnosis is based on clinical evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging. Surgical treatment includes traditional open decompression and the endoscopic technique, the latter involving less trauma and quicker recovery. Objective: To review and compare the outcomes of spinal cord decompression via open and endoscopic approaches. Method: A search in the PUBMED database with the strategy: (decompre*[title] OR lamin*[title] OR discec*[title] OR micro*[title]) AND ((endosc*[title] OR minima*[title] OR percut*[title]) AND (open*[title] OR traditional[title])), with a 10-year time frame. Results: 22 studies were identified; after reviewing titles and abstracts, 11 were excluded, leaving 11 articles that formed the sample. Conclusion: Minimally invasive techniques showed clinical efficacy comparable to open approaches in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and lumbar spinal stenosis, with advantages in perioperative parameters. Variations in outcomes related to pain, function, complications, and reoperations suggest that the choice of technique should be individualized, considering the clinical presentation, the complexity of the lesion, and surgical expertise.
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.