ArticleBrain & spine2026
Secondary untethering and re-untethering are both beneficial in adult tethered cord syndrome: a single-center cohort study.
Article in Brain & spine, 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: Adult tethered cord syndrome (TCS) represents a heterogeneous group of congenital and acquired conditions. While primary untethering is an established treatment, re-untethering remains controversial because of concerns regarding limited neurological benefit and increased complication rates. Research question: This study evaluates neurological outcomes after adults re-untethering surgery and identifies perioperative factors associated with clinical improvement. Methods: We performed a retrospective single-center cohort analysis of all patients surgically treated for TCS between 2008 and 2024. Patients were dichotomized into primary untethering and secondary re-untethering groups. Neurological status was assessed using the McCormick grade. Neurological improvement was defined as improvement of ≥1 McCormick grade. Postoperative complications and revision surgeries were recorded. Age and affected spinal level were analyzed as potential modifiers of outcome. Results: Seventy-one patients were included (median age 51.5 years); 42 underwent primary untethering and 29 re-untethering. Patients undergoing re-untethering presented with significantly worse baseline neurological status. Neurological improvement at discharge was more frequent after primary untethering (52.4% vs. 31.0%), but this difference reversed at follow-up, with higher improvement rates after secondary re-untethering (68.4% vs. 61.5%). Neither age nor affected spinal level significantly influenced neurological outcome or revision rates. Re-untethering was associated with more complex surgeries, and higher wound-healing complication rates. Discussion and conclusion: Despite worse baseline neurological status, re-untethering is not associated with inferior neurological outcomes compared with primary untethering. Neurological improvement appears to be a time-dependent process, and baseline impairment alone should not preclude surgical intervention. Re-untethering in adult patients should therefore be considered on an individual basis.
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.