FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3185666006> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3185666006 endingPage "545" @default.
• W3185666006 startingPage "535" @default.
• W3185666006 abstract "OBJECTIVE Syringomyelia is a debilitating, progressive disease process that can lead to loss of neurological function in patients already experiencing significant compromise. Syringosubarachnoid, syringoperitoneal, and syringopleural shunts are accepted treatment options for patients with persistent syringomyelia, but direct comparisons have been lacking to date. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between these three syrinx shunt modalities. METHODS Utilizing PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness were searched to identify all potentially relevant studies published from inception until July 2020. Data were extracted and analyzed using meta-analysis of proportions. The primary study outcome was the rate of reoperation based on the initial shunt modality. Secondary outcomes included clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and complications following shunt placement. RESULTS A total of 22 articles describing 27 distinct treatment cohorts published between 1984 and 2019 satisfied the inclusion criteria. This captured 473 syrinx shunt procedures, 193 (41%) by syringosubarachnoid shunt, 153 (32%) by syringoperitoneal shunt, and 127 (27%) by syringopleural shunt, with an overall median clinical follow-up of 44 months. The pooled incidences of revision surgery were estimated as 13% for syringosubarachnoid, 28% for syringoperitoneal, and 10% for syringopleural shunts, respectively (p-interaction = 0.27). The rate of clinical improvement was estimated as 61% for syringosubarachnoid, 64% for syringoperitoneal, and 71% for syringopleural shunts. The rate of clinical deterioration following placement was estimated as 13% for syringosubarachnoid, 13% for syringoperitoneal, and 10% for syringopleural shunts. CONCLUSIONS The preferred modality of syrinx shunting remains a controversial topic for symptomatic syringomyelia. This study suggests that while all three modalities offer similar rates of clinical improvement and deterioration after placement, syringoperitoneal shunts have a greater rate of malfunction requiring surgical revision. These data also suggest that syringopleural shunts may offer the best rate of clinical improvement with the lowest rate of reoperation." @default.
• W3185666006 created "2021-08-02" @default.
• W3185666006 creator A5027559491 @default.
• W3185666006 creator A5050298825 @default.
• W3185666006 creator A5058043578 @default.
• W3185666006 date "2021-10-01" @default.
• W3185666006 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W3185666006 title "Syrinx shunts for syringomyelia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of syringosubarachnoid, syringoperitoneal, and syringopleural shunting" @default.
• W3185666006 cites W1571366223 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W1585509793 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W1964435302 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W1966730449 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W1972181343 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W1972837773 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W1984270164 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2002370146 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2022769138 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2033585778 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2037430377 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2039996112 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2049661659 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2052896077 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2071584822 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2075163451 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2077560920 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2092142257 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2092649626 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2092923243 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2096237543 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2096314724 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2107328434 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2116534921 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2125089140 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2140205150 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2155853435 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2157823046 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2161810494 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2162369337 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2532464692 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2594135845 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2762182201 @default.
• W3185666006 cites W2970480392 @default.
• W3185666006 doi "https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.12.spine201826" @default.
• W3185666006 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34330095" @default.
• W3185666006 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3185666006 type Work @default.
• W3185666006 sameAs 3185666006 @default.
• W3185666006 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W3185666006 countsByYear W31856660062022 @default.
• W3185666006 countsByYear W31856660062023 @default.
• W3185666006 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3185666006 hasAuthorship W3185666006A5027559491 @default.
• W3185666006 hasAuthorship W3185666006A5050298825 @default.
• W3185666006 hasAuthorship W3185666006A5058043578 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C143409427 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C2777836068 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C2780968331 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C126322002 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C126838900 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C141071460 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C143409427 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C17744445 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C189708586 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C199539241 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C2776478404 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C2777836068 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C2779473830 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C2780968331 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C71924100 @default.
• W3185666006 hasConceptScore W3185666006C95190672 @default.
• W3185666006 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3185666006 hasLocation W31856660061 @default.
• W3185666006 hasLocation W31856660062 @default.
• W3185666006 hasOpenAccess W3185666006 @default.
• W3185666006 hasPrimaryLocation W31856660061 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W3027459656 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W3082854370 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W3117110396 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W3134414398 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W4207082034 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W4226154391 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W4226383011 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W4289667130 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W4313625070 @default.
• W3185666006 hasRelatedWork W4315436681 @default.
• W3185666006 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W3185666006 isParatext "false" @default.

• next