ArticleActa orthopaedica2013
Instrumentation in lumbar fusion improves back pain but not quality of life 2 years after surgery. A study of 1,310 patients with degenerative disc disease from the Swedish Spine Register SWESPINE.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence and practice in spine registries.Acta orthopaedica · 2015Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes following augmented reality-assisted pedicle screw placement in spinal fusion patients.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Research trends and clustering analysis of postoperative infections following lumbar interbody fusion: a bibliometric study.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Trajectory of health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery: a 1-year longitudinal study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018Article
- Dynamic posterior stabilization for degenerative lumbar spine disease: a large consecutive case series with long-term follow-up by additional postal survey.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 · 2016Article
- Swespine: the Swedish spine register : the 2012 report.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeInstrumented and non-instrumented methods of fusion have been compared in several studies, but the results are often inconsistent and conflicting. We compared the 2-year results of 3 methods of lumbar fusion when used in degenerative disc disease (DDD), using the Swedish Spine Register (SWESPINE).
methodsAll patients registered in SWESPINE for surgical treatment of DDD between January 1, 2000 and October 1, 2007 were eligible for the study. Patients who had completed the 2-year follow-up were included in the analysis. The outcomes of 3 methods of surgical fusion were assessed.
resultsOf 1,310 patients enrolled, 115 had undergone uninstrumented fusion, 620 instrumented posterolateral fusion, and 575 instrumented interbody fusion. Irrespective of the surgical procedure, quality of life (QoL) improved and back pain diminished. Change in QoL and functional disability and return to work was similar in the 3 groups. Patients who had undergone uninstrumented fusion had more back pain than the patients with instrumented interbody fusion at the 2-year follow-up (p = 0.02), although the difference was only 7 visual analog scale (VAS) units (95% CI: 1-13) on a 100-point scale. Moreover, 83% of the patients with uninstrumented fusion used analgesics at the end of follow-up as compared to 68% of the patients who had undergone surgery with one of the 2 instrumented fusion techniques.
interpretationIn comparison with instrumented interbody fusion, uninstrumented fusion was associated with higher levels of back pain 2 years after surgery. We found no evidence for differences in QoL between uninstrumented fusion and instrumented interbody 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.