ArticleSpine2016
Complications and Rates of Subsequent Lumbar Surgery Following Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty and Lumbar Fusion.
Article in Spine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
The Sagittal Plane Shear Index (SPSI) for Planning Whether to Fuse After Decompressing a Stenotic Lumbar Level
Total Lumbar Disc Prosthesis and Subsequent Work Activity 5 Years After Total Lumbar Disc Replacement
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring extracellular vesicles as novel therapeutic agents for intervertebral disc degeneration: delivery, applications, and mechanisms.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Review
- Biomimetic Microchannel Integrated Silk Fibroin Scaffold for Regeneration of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration.Biomaterials research · 2025Article
- Presentation and management of infection in total disc replacement: A review.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Review
- Outcomes of patients undergoing single-level arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Index-Level and Adjacent-Level Revision Surgery Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- New Hope for Treating Intervertebral Disc Degeneration: Microsphere-Based Delivery System.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Comparative Analysis of 30-Day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity Between Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty Performed in the Inpatient and Outpatient Settings Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP Dataset.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- 2021 Position Statement From the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery on Cervical and Lumbar Disc Replacement.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Advances and Prospects in Biomaterials for Intervertebral Disk Regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- ICR in human cadaveric specimens: An essential parameter to consider in a new lumbar disc prosthesis design.North American Spine Society journal · 2020Article
- Clinical trials of intervertebral disc regeneration: current status and future developments.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
- Disc herniation caused by a viscoelastic nucleus after total lumbar disc replacement-a case report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2018Article
- We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement.International journal of spine surgery · 2018Article
- Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2017Review
- Comparison of value per operative time between anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lumbar disc arthroplasty: A propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective analysis.
objectiveTo examine complications and rates of subsequent surgery following lumbar spinal fusion (LF) and lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) at up to 5-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LF is commonly used in the management of degenerative disc disease causing pain refractory to nonoperative management. Lumbar TDA was developed as an alternative to fusion with the theoretical advantage of reducing rates of adjacent segment pathology and reoperation. Most prior reports comparing these 2 interventions have come from industry-sponsored investigational device exemption trials and no large-scale administrative database comparisons exist.
methodsThe California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development discharge database was queried for patients aged 18 to 65 years undergoing lumbar TDA and LF for degenerative disc disease from 2004 to 2010. Patient characteristics were collected, and rates of complications and readmission were identified. Rates of repeat lumbar surgery were calculated at 90-day and 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up intervals.
resultsA total of 52,877 patients met the inclusion criteria (LF = 50,462, TDA = 2415). Wound infections were more common following LF than TDA (1.03% vs. 0.25%, P < 0.001). Rates of subsequent lumbar surgery at 90-day and 1-year follow-up were lower with lumbar TDA than LF (90-day-TDA: 2.94% vs. LF: 4.01%, P = 0.007; 1-yr-TDA: 3.46% vs. LF: 4.78%, P = 0.009). However, there were no differences in rates of subsequent lumbar surgery between the 2 groups at 3-year and 5-year follow-up.
conclusionLumbar TDA was associated with fewer early reoperations, though beyond 1 year, rates of reoperation were similar. Lumbar TDA may be associated with fewer acute infections, though this may be approach related and unrelated to the device itself. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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.