ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Evaluation of a novel tool for bone graft delivery in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Review
- Orthobiologics in minimally invasive lumbar fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designDisk material removed (DMR) during L4-5 and L5-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (T-LIF) surgery was compared to the corresponding bone graft (BG) volumes inserted at the time of fusion. A novel BG delivery tool (BGDT) was used to apply the BG. In order to establish the percentage of DMR during T-LIF, it was compared to DMR during anterior diskectomy (AD). This study was performed prospectively. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Minimal information is available as to the volume of DMR during a T-LIF procedure, and the relationship between DMR and BG delivered is unknown. BG insertion has been empiric and technically challenging. Since the volume of BG applied to the prepared disk space likely impacts the probability of arthrodesis, an investigation is justified.
methodsA total of 65 patients with pathology at L4-5 and/or L5-S1 necessitating fusion were treated with a minimally invasive T-LIF procedure. DMR was volumetrically measured during disk space preparation. BG material consisting of local autograft, BG extender, and bone marrow aspirate were mixed to form a slurry. BG slurry was injected into the disk space using a novel BGDT and measured volumetrically. An additional 29 patients who were treated with L5-S1 AD were compared to L5-S1 T-LIF DMR to determine the percent of T-LIF DMR relative to AD.
resultsDMR volumes averaged 3.6±2.2 mL. This represented 34% of the disk space relative to AD. The amount of BG delivered to the disk spaces was 9.3±3.2 mL, which is 2.6±2.2 times the amount of DMR. The BGDT allowed uncomplicated filling of the disk space in <1 minute.
conclusionThe volume of DMR during T-LIF allows for a predictable volume of BG delivery. The BGDT allowed complete filling of the entire prepared disk space. The T-LIF diskectomy debrides 34% of the disk relative to AD.
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.