Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19404688›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 Society2009

Comparison of single-level L4-L5 versus L5-S1 lumbar disc replacement: results and prognostic factors.

Riccardo Sinigaglia, Albert Bundy, Sandro Costantini, Ugo Nena, Francesco Finocchiaro, Daniele A Fabris Monterumici

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
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, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty: outdated surgery or here to stay procedure? A systematic review of current literature.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Who bleeds during elective anterior lumbar surgery?North American Spine Society journal · 2022
    Article
  5. Long-term clinical outcome of the Charité III total lumbar disc replacement.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 · 2020
    Article
  6. We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement.International journal of spine surgery · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. ISASS Policy Statement - Lumbar Artificial Disc.International journal of spine surgery · 2015
    Article
  11. Dynamic motion characteristics of the lower lumbar spine: implication to lumbar pathology and surgical treatment.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
  12. In silico evaluation of a new composite disc substitute with a L3-L5 lumbar spine finite element model.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
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Riccardo SinigagliaSpine Surgery Unit, Padua University Hospital, via Giustiniani 1, Padua 35128, Italy. sinigagliariccardo@siot.it
Albert Bundy
Sandro Costantini
Ugo Nena
Francesco Finocchiaro
Daniele A Fabris Monterumici
University of Padua · ITQT Ultrasound (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of our prospective non-randomized clinical study was to analyze operative data, short-term results, safety, efficacy, complications, and prognostic factors for single-level total lumbar disc replacement (TLDR), and to compare results between different levels (L4-L5 vs. L5-S1). Thirty-six patients with single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 TLDR, with 1-year minimum follow-up (FU), had complete clinical [SF36, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] and radiological data, and were included in our study. Mean FU was 38.67 +/- 17.34 months. Replaced level was L4-L5 in 12 (33.3%) cases, and L5-S1 in 24 cases (66.7%). Mean age at diagnosis was 41.17 +/- 7.14 years. 24 (66.7%) were females and 12 (33.3%) were males. Statistical analyses were assessed using t tests or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test analyses for categorical variables. Univariate linear regression and binary logistic regression analyses were utilized to evaluate the relationship between surgical outcomes and covariates (gender, age, etiology, treated level, pre-operative SF36, ODI, and VAS). Mean operative time was 147.03 +/- 30.03 min. Mean hospital stay was 9.69 +/- 5.39 days, and mean return to ambulation was 4.31 +/- 1.17 days. At 1-year FU, patients revealed a statistical significant improvement in VAS pain (P = 0.000), ODI lumbar function (P = 0.000), and SF36 general health status (P = 0.000). Single-level TLDR is a good alternative to fusion for chronic discogenic low back pain refractory to conservative measures. Our study confirmed satisfactory clinical results for monosegmental L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc prosthesis, with no difference between the two different levels for SF36 (P = 0.217), ODI (P = 0.527), and VAS (P = 0.269). However, replacement of the L4-L5 disc is affected by an increased risk of complication (P = 0.000). There were no prognostic factors for intraoperative blood loss or return to ambulation. Age (P = 0.034) was the only prognostic factor for operative time. Hospital stay was affected by level (P = 0.036) and pre-op VAS (P = 0.006), while complications were affected by the level (P = 0.000) and pre-op ODI (P = 0.049). Complete pre-operative assessment (in particular VAS and ODI questionnaires) is important because more debilitating patients will have more hospital stay and higher complications or complaints. Patients had to be informed that complications, possibly severe, are particularly frequent (80.6%).

Indexed as

AdultAge FactorsArthroplastyDiskectomyFemaleHumansIntervertebral DiscIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLength of StayLow Back PainLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePostoperative ComplicationsPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID19404688
PMCPMC2899612
OpenAlexW1985568421

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.