ArticleActa chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca2026
[Percutaneous Stabilization of the Thoracolumbar Spine: Indications, Limitations and Cohort Analysis].
Article in Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca, 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
purpose of the studyPercutaneous stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine represents a minimally invasive alternative to open posterior fixation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications, perioperative parameters, and limitations of this method in a single-center patient cohort. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of 65 consecutive patients treated with percutaneous transpedicular stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine between 2021 and 2025 was performed. All procedures were carried out using an intraoperative CT-based navigation system (O-arm). Demographic data, primary diagnosis, extent of instrumentation, additional procedures, operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications were evaluated.
resultsThe most common indication was trauma (75.4%), followed by metastatic disease (13.8%), and infection (10.8%). Placement of 8 screws was used most commonly (78.5%). The mean operative time was 104 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 141 ml. When patients who underwent decompression were excluded, the mean blood loss decreased to 112 ml (14 ml per screw). The mean length of hospital stay was 11.4 days and dropped to 6.7 days after excluding patients with concomitant factors. No pedicle screw malposition was observed. Revision surgery was required in 7 patients. DISCUSSION: Percutaneous stabilization is associated with low blood loss and favourable postoperative outcomes. A more detailed analysis suggests that the percutaneous instrumentation itself is a low-blood-loss procedure, while overall perioperative parameters are significantly influenced by the scope of combined surgical procedures. Proper patient selection remains crucial.
conclusionsPercutaneous stabilization is an effective and less invasive method, particularly suitable for patients in whom deformity correction or posterior fusion is not required. The greatest benefit is observed in polymorbid, polytraumatized and oncological patients, where minimizing surgical burden is essential. Appropriate indication and awareness of the method's limitations are key to achieving optimal outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42506687What 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.