ArticleCureus2016
MASTERS-D Study: A Prospective, Multicenter, Pragmatic, Observational, Data-Monitored Trial of Minimally Invasive Fusion to Treat Degenerative Lumbar Disorders, One-Year Follow-Up.
Article in Cureus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01143324 (A Prospective, Multicenter Observational Study on MAST™), which is not on this 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.
A Prospective, Multicenter Observational Study on MAST™ (Minimal Access Spinal Technologies) Fusion Procedures for the Treatment of the Degenerative Lumbar Spine (MASTERS-D)
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2019Pooled it
- Neuropathic pain appears to be the main symptom associated with higher disease burden and lower pain alleviation in degenerative lumbar disease fusion patients.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) do not increase blood loss or the incidence of postoperative epidural hematomas when using minimally invasive fusion techniques in the degenerative lumbar spine.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- The influence of smoking in minimally invasive spinal fusion surgery.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2021Article
- Accidental Dural Tears in Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Are the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal/Posterior Lumbar Fusion Influenced by the Patient's Age or BMI?Clinical spine surgery · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe objective of the study is to assess effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MILIF) for degenerative lumbar disorders (DLD) in daily surgical practice and follow up with patients for one year after surgery. A prospective, multicenter, pragmatic, monitored, international outcome study in patients with DLD causing back/leg pain was conducted (19 centers). Two hundred fifty-two patients received standard of care available in the centers. Patients were included if they were aged >18 years, required one- or two-level lumbar fusion for DLD, and met the criteria for approved device indications. Primary endpoints: time to first ambulation (TFA) and time to surgery recovery (TSR). Secondary endpoints: patient-reported outcomes (PROs)--back and leg pain (visual analog scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)), health status (EQ-5D), fusion rates, reoperation rates, change in pain medication, rehabilitation, return to work, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). Experienced surgeons (≥30 surgeries pre-study) treated patients with DLD by one- or two-level MILIF and patients were evaluated for one year (NCT01143324). At one year, 92% (233/252) of patients remained in the study. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: TFA, 1.3 ±0.5 days and TSR, 3.2 ±2.0 days. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Most patients (83.3%) received one level MILIF; one (two-level) MILIF mean surgery duration, 128 (182) min; fluoroscopy time, 115 (154) sec; blood loss, 164 (233) mL; at one year statistically significant (P<.0001) and clinically meaningful changes from baseline were reported in all PROs--reduced back pain (2.9 ±2.5 vs. 6.2 ±2.3 at intake), reduced leg pain (2.2 ±2.6 vs. 5.9 ±2.8), and ODI (22.4% ± 18.6 vs. 45.3% ± 15.3), as well as health-related quality of life (EQ-5D index: 0.71 ±0.28 vs. 0.34 ±0.32). More of the professional workers were working at one year than those prior to surgery (70.3% vs. 55.2%). Three AEs and one serious AE were considered procedure-related; there were no deep site infections or deaths. This is the first study evaluating MILIF for treatment of DLD in daily clinical practice. Clinically significant improvements were observed in all endpoints. Short-term post-surgery improvements (four weeks) were maintained through one year with minimal complications. Our results suggest that MILIF has good-to-excellent outcomes for the treatment of DLD in a broad patient population under different clinical conditions and healthcare delivery systems.
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.