Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25476136›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 Society2015

Anterior stand-alone fusion revisited: a prospective clinical, X-ray and CT investigation.

Christoph J Siepe, Katrin Stosch-Wiechert, Franziska Heider, Phat Amnajtrakul, Alexander Krenauer, Wolfgang Hitzl, Ulrike Szeimies, Axel Stäbler, H Michael Mayer

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
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, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. ALIF in the correction of spinal sagittal misalignment. A systematic review of literature.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
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Efficacy analysis of autologous facet joint bone block in lumbar interbody fusion of osteoporosis patients].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Christoph J SiepeSpine Center, Schön Clinic Munich Harlaching, Harlachinger Str. 51, 81547, Munich, Germany, csiepe@schoen-kliniken.de.
Katrin Stosch-Wiechert
Franziska Heider
Phat Amnajtrakul
Alexander Krenauer
Wolfgang Hitzl
Ulrike Szeimies
Axel Stäbler
H Michael Mayer
Schön Klinik München Harlaching · DEMünchen Klinik Harlaching · DEParacelsus Medical University · ATBhumibol Adulyadej Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the mid-term clinical and radiological results as well as patient safety in terms of complication and reoperation rates in patients treated with a novel anterior stand-alone fusion (ASAF) device (Synfix-LR, DePuy Synthes, West Chester, PA, USA) in a cohort of patients with predominant and intractable low back pain originating from monosegmental degenerative disc disease at the lumbosacral junction.

methodsClinical outcome scores visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and patient satisfaction rates were acquired within the framework of an ongoing single-center prospective clinical trial. Evaluation of radiological data included segmental and global lumbar lordosis, neuroforaminal height and width. Interbody fusion was assessed from post-operative CT scans. The minimum follow-up (FU) was 12 months.

results71 out of an initial 77 patients were available for final FU (92.2 % FU rate) after a mean FU of 35.1 months (range 12.0-85.5 months). The overall results revealed a highly significant improvement from baseline VAS and ODI levels (p < 0.0001). 77.5 % (n = 55/71) of all patients reported a 'highly satisfactory' (n = 37/71; 52.1 %) or a 'satisfactory' (n = 18/71; 25.4 %) outcome; 22.5 % of patients were not satisfied. The overall complication rate was 12.7 % (n = 9/71). Two cases required post-operative revision surgery (2.8 %). Radiographical analysis demonstrated a highly significant increase of segmental lordosis from 16.1° to 26.7° (p < 0.0001). A high rate of solid interbody fusion was confirmed in 97.3 % of all cases (n = 36/37).

conclusionThe current study delineates satisfactory clinical results following ASAF at the lumbosacral junction. Patient safety was demonstrated with acceptable complication and low reoperation rates. Radiological data demonstrated a significant reconstruction of lordosis at the lumbosacral junction. Solid interbody fusion was achieved in 97.3 % of all cases in a highly selected cohort with optimal predisposition for fusion. ASAF may serve to avoid a variety of negative side effects for a considerable number of patients which, otherwise, would have been candidates for posterior instrumented fusion techniques.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLow Back PainLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionPostoperative PeriodProspective StudiesReoperation

Identifiers

PMID25476136
OpenAlexW2024504611

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.