Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42006928›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2026

Brachial- and lumbosacral plexus tumours zone system for surgery brain and spine nerve edition.

Thomas Kretschmer, Christian Heinen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Thomas KretschmerKlinikum Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurorestoration, Austria.
Christian HeinenChristliches Krankenhaus Quakenbrück Gmbh, PeripheralNerveUnit Nord, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Operating on plexus related neoplasia involves a higher risk for morbidity and functional deterioration. For neck-and intrapelvic plexus tumours (tu) a variety of approaches exist, with fluent transition to standard spine, abdominal and thoracic surgery. We described a systematic approach selection for complex multi compartmental lumbosacral plexus tumours before. Based on this decision pathway we now suggest a unifying classification system, applicable for both brachial- and lumbosacral plexus. Objective: To introduce a unifying zone system for brachial- and lumbosacral plexus to ease adequate approach selection for simple and complex nerve associated plexus tumours. The system further refines our approach selection process for these patients. Method: Based on MRI, localisation, tumour boundaries and their correlation to landmarks define core zones that facilitate the choice of one or the combination of different appropriate approach/es: in brachial plexus tumour BP Zone I-IV with spinal (Spi), foraminal (For), lateral thoracic wall (Ltw) extension; in lumbosacral tumour LSP Zone I-III with spinal (Spi), foraminal (For), femoral (Fem), Sci (sciatic) extension. Result: The system works to easily classify plexus tumours in groups and suggests appropriate approach choices, even involving combinations of surgical accesses not described previously. Conclusion: We propose the "Zone plus extension Plexus tu classification system" derived from tumour imaging to classify brachial- and lumbosacral plexus tumours prior to surgery. The necessary decision making inherently suggests approach combinations for tu removal. The classification thus aids to secure adequate exposure to prevent untoward surgical compromises.

Indexed as

BrachialClassificationLandmarksLumbosacralPlexus tumoursSurgical approach

Identifiers

PMID42006928
PMCPMC13087683

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.