Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17851701›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2008

The positive effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion is preserved at long-term follow-up: a RCT with 11-13 year follow-up.

Thomas Andersen, Tina S Videbaek, Ebbe S Hansen, Cody Bünger, Finn B Christensen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Adjacent segment degeneration and disease after lumbar fusion compared with motion-preserving procedures: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Long-term (> 10 years) clinical outcomes of instrumented posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021
    Trial
  5. Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion. 5-10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Trial
  6. Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2009
    Trial
  7. A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2009
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The prevalence of depressive symptoms before and after surgery and its association with disability in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Lumbar instrumented posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthetic and failed back patients: a long-term follow-up study spanning 11-13 years.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Thomas AndersenOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics E, Aarhus University Hospital, Building 1A, Nørrebrogade 44, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. tba@dadlnet.dk
Tina S Videbaek
Ebbe S Hansen
Cody Bünger
Finn B Christensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew studies have investigated the long-term effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion on functional outcome.

aimTo investigate the long-term result after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with and without pedicle screw instrumentation.

methodsQuestionnaire survey of 129 patients originally randomised to posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Follow-up included Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 and a question regarding willingness to undergo the procedure again knowing the result as global outcome parameter.

resultsFollow-up was 83% of the original study population (107 patients). Average follow-up time was 12 years (range 11-13 years). DPQ-scores were significantly lower than preoperatively in both groups (P < 0.005) and no drift towards the preoperative level was seen. No difference between the two groups were observed (instrumented vs. non-instrumented): DPQ Daily Activity mean 37.0 versus 32.0, ODI mean 33.4 versus 30.6, SF-36 PCS mean 38.8 versus 39.8, SF-36 MCS mean 49.0 versus 53.3. About 71% in both groups were answered positively to the global outcome question. Patients who had retired due to low back pain had poorer outcome than patients retired for other reasons, best outcome was seen in patients still at work (P = 0.01 or less in all questionnaires, except SF-36 MCS P = 0.08). DISCUSSION: Improvement in functional outcome is preserved for 10 or more years after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. No difference between instrumented fusion and non-instrumented fusion was observed. Patients who have to retired due to low back pain have the smallest improvement.

Indexed as

Bone ScrewsActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisability EvaluationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth SurveysHumansLongitudinal StudiesLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareSpinal Diseases

Identifiers

PMID17851701
PMCPMC2365547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.