Trial reportDer Orthopade2012
[Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis].
Trial report in Der Orthopade, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Clinical Effect of Minimally Invasive Microendoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Preoperative lordosis in L4/5 predicts segmental lordosis correction achievable by transforaminal lumbar interbody 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 · 2021Article
- Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis.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 · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDegenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is a common cause of lumbal and lumbosacral pain as well as radicular pain. Retention and fusion is a good treatment option. Some patients have a symptomatic adjacent degenerative disc disease (DDD) in addition to DS. In these cases the adjacent segments should be fused as well. There are different techniques of fusion available, such as posterior with instrumentation or additional anterior support. This study evaluated results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with monosegmental DS and adjacent DDD. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 28 patients with monosegmental DS and adjacent DDD were included into the study (all patients with bisegmental posterior instrumentation and fusion, 14 patients 1 level TLIF, 14 patients 2 level TLIF). Before surgery and 12 months after surgery the following measurements were made: pain (visual analog scale VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and plain radiographs with radiometric analysis. In a sub-analysis patients with 1 and 2 level TLIF were compared.
resultsPain reduction (average VAS from 8.7-3.1) and ODI (63% to 28%) showed significant improvements. Radiometric analysis showed a significant disc height reconstruction and a significant reduction of spondylolisthesis (TLIF level with spondylolisthesis). Bisegmental anterior support showed a significantly better relordosation compared to monosegmental anterior support. The complication rate was 21.4% including hemorrhages, dura leakage, wound infection and adjacent segment degeneration. There were no fatal complications. DISCUSSION: The TLIF procedure is a safe and effective treatment for monosegmental DS with adjacent symptomatic DDD. Clinical results (pain, function) show no difference between both kinds of fusion (dorsal fusion and instrumentation versus dorsal fusion with instrumentation and TLIF) for the adjacent DDD. However, additional anterior support is more effective for relordosation of the segment. This could have impact on the mid-term and long-term outcome or in cases of adjacent segment fusion.
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.