ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Tips and tricks of spinal cord biopsy: insights from a multicenter series of 61 patients.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of isolated spinal vasculitis: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Frameless Robotic Stereotactic Biopsy with Intraoperative Sodium Fluorescein Versus Frame-Based Stereotactic Technique.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Case Report: Intramedullary solitary fibrous tumor at the C7-T1 level diagnosed by STAT6 and treated with maximal safe resection.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhenever the radiological and clinical presentation of diffuse spinal cord lesions pose diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas, the role of primary spinal cord biopsies (SCB) can represent a crucial surgical step to guide further management. However, the benefits of SCB comes with the risks of significant neurological worsening and potentially non-diagnostic findings. An evidence-based algorithm to assess the appropriateness of SCB and its chances of successful diagnosis is currently lacking.
methodA multicenter retrospective study was conducted across 8 tertiary neurosurgery European centers and included all patients undergoing primary SCB between January 2005 and December 2020. The main objective of this study was to assess the positive diagnostic rate, while the secondary objective was to evaluate the rate of neurological deterioration.
resultsHistological diagnoses were obtained in 91.8% (56/61) of cases. Lesions spanning more than three spinal levels were significantly associated with non-diagnostic biopsies (p = 0.03). Neurological deterioration occurred in 47.5% (29/61) of patients, with 48,3% recovering within three weeks. Independent risk factors for postoperative deterioration included low-grade glioma (LGG) (p = 0.005) and lymphoma (p = 0.007). Intraoperative Ultrasound (IoUS) was significantly associated with reduced postoperative deficits (p = 0.030). Surprisingly, preoperative clinical and radiological diagnoses differed from histopathological findings in 47.5% of cases.
conclusionSCB are relatively safe and effective diagnostic procedures despite their inherent risk of significant perioperative neurological worsening. The decision to undertake a primary SCB should always be made in a multidisciplinary setting after careful review of clinical and diagnostic findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40366520What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.