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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Lumbar total disc arthroplasty: outdated surgery or here to stay procedure?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 · 2017Pooled it
- Serum metabolomic analysis of lumbar disc herniation at different location based on UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS: a population study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Who bleeds during elective anterior lumbar surgery?North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement.International journal of spine surgery · 2018Article
- Radiographic Analysis of the Lumbosacral Juncture: Is There a Critical Sacral Angle for Total Disc Replacement?Asian spine journal · 2017Article
- Sagittal plane rotation center of lower lumbar spine during a dynamic weight-lifting activity.Journal of biomechanics · 2016Article
- Prognostic Value of Impaired Preoperative Ankle Reflex in Surgical Outcome of Lumbar Disc Herniation.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2016Article
- ISASS Policy Statement - Lumbar Artificial Disc.International journal of spine surgery · 2015Article
- 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 · 2014Article
- 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 · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.