ArticleNeurospine2026
Clinical Decision Making and Outcomes of Sagittal Vertebral Resection: A Head-to-Head Comparison With Total Vertebral Resection.
Article in Neurospine, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare perioperative burden, hardware outcomes, and oncologic control between sagittal vertebral resection (SVR) and total vertebral resection (TVR) for thoracolumbar tumors, and to propose a practical framework for SVR surgical decision making.
methodsClinical data, operative parameters, and follow-up outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. To address baseline imbalances in tumor volume and preoperative embolization, a 1:1 propensity score matching was performed based on 5 critical covariates, resulting in a matched cohort of 78 patients (39 per group). Groups were compared using Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and chi-square/Fisher exact test for categorical variables.
resultsIn the total cohort (39 SVR vs. 84 TVR), SVR significantly reduced blood loss (median 1,200 mL vs. 1,500 mL, p=0.016), transfusion (800 mL vs. 1,200 mL, p<0.001), complication rate (51.3% vs. 77.4%, p=0.004), and hospital stay (13.7 days vs. 19.0 days, p=0.012). Bilateral nerve root sacrifice was less frequent in SVR (41.0% vs. 69.0%, p<0.001). Negative surgical margins (71.8% vs. 73.8%, p=0.814) and local recurrence (12.8% vs. 13.1%, p=0.965) were comparable. Postmatching analysis (n=78) confirmed that even after balancing for tumor volume and embolization, the SVR group maintained significant advantages in blood loss (p=0.035) and operation time (p=0.041). Hardware failure occurred in 3 TVR patients (3.6%) but in none after SVR.
conclusionSVR significantly reduces perioperative morbidity while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes relative to TVR. The superiority of SVR remains robust after propensity score adjustment for tumor complexity. By formalizing a type-based surgical decision-making framework, this study provides practical guidance for when and how SVR may be safely adopted as a standardized alternative to TVR in appropriately selected thoracolumbar tumors.
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.