Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26362051›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

Trabecular metal spacers as standalone or with pedicle screw augmentation, in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Erik Van de Kelft, Johan Van Goethem

Abstract readRandomized Controlled 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Preoperative conservative treatment is insufficiently described in clinical trials of lumbar fusion: a scoping review.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 · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Tantalum: the next biomaterial in spine surgery?Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020
    Review
  8. Observational
  9. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Erik Van de KelftDepartment of Neurosurgery, AZ Nikolaas, Moerlandstraat 1, 9100, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium. Erik.Vandekelft@aznikolaas.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6412-8009
Johan Van GoethemDepartment of Medical Imaging, AZ Nikolaas, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.
Antwerp University Hospital · BEAZ Sint-Lucas · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis prospective randomized comparative trial compared radiological and clinical outcome of Trabecular Metal™ (TM) spacers in PLIF, used as standalone (SA) devices, to TM spacers in PLIF with pedicle screw fixation (PF), in patients with single-level degenerative disc disease (DDD).

methodsPatients (n = 80) with chronic low back pain and single-level degenerative disc were randomly assigned to the SA PLIF (n = 40) or PLIF with PF (n = 40). The primary radiological outcome was the evaluation of a long-term (±6 years; range 6.0-7.7 years) stable construct measured by dynamic X-rays. CT scan does not allow judging the bony bridging between vertebrae, because of Tantalum artefacts. The clinical evaluation (6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months) consisted of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, intensity of low back pain (Visual Analogue Scale) and quality of life (Short Form-36).

resultsAt 6-year follow-up, X-rays showed a stable construct in 94 % of patients treated by SA TM-500 spacers and in 97 % of those with additional PF. Neither subsidence nor migration was observed in either the SA or the PF group. The average improvement in ODI scores at 24-month clinical follow-up was 14.4 and 13.8 for the SA and PF group, respectively. The VAS score showed an average improvement of 6.4 (SA) and 6.7 (PF), 2 years after implantation. No significant difference between groups was observed at all the evaluation points.

conclusionIn this study, TM spacers were found to provide a solid construct at more than 6-year follow-up after PLIF for DDD both with and without additional pedicle fixation. The clinical, but also radiological results were not significantly different between both cohorts. Future studies focusing on the differences of SA and PF at L4/5 level should be powered to study differences in post-surgery stability at the long term.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsAdultFemaleHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLow Back PainLumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRadiographySpinal FusionTreatment OutcomePedicle screw fixationPosterior lumbar interbody fusionRadiological outcomeStandaloneTrabecular metal

Identifiers

PMID26362051
OpenAlexW1894933966

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.