Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27888353›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2017

Degenerative spondylolisthesis: contemporary review of the role of interbody fusion.

Joseph F Baker, Thomas J Errico, Yong Kim, Afshin Razi

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2017. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A retrospective review comparing two-year patient-reported outcomes, costs, and healthcare resource utilization for TLIF vs. PLF for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.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 · 2018
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph F BakerDepartment of Spine and Spinal Deformity Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10002, USA. joseph.f.baker@gmail.com.
Thomas J ErricoDepartment of Spine and Spinal Deformity Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10002, USA.
Yong KimDepartment of Spine and Spinal Deformity Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10002, USA.
Afshin RaziDepartment of Spine and Spinal Deformity Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10002, USA.
New York University Langone Orthopedic Hospital · USNYU Langone Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common presentation, yet the best surgical treatment continues to be a matter of debate. Interbody fusion is one of a number of options, but its exact role remains ill defined. The aim of this study was to provide a contemporary review of the literature to help determine the role, if any, of interbody fusion in the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. A systematic review of the literature since 2005 was performed. Details on study size, patient age, surgical treatments, levels of slip, patient reported outcome measures, radiographic outcomes, complications and selected utility measures were recorded. Studies that compared a cohort treated with interbody fusion and at least one other surgical intervention for comparison were included for review. Only studies examining the effect in degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Two authors independently reviewed the manuscripts and extracted key data. Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. A total of 565 underwent interbody fusion and 761 underwent other procedures including decompression alone, interspinous stabilisation and posterolateral fusion with or without instrumentation. Most studies were graded Level III evidence. Heterogeneous reporting of outcomes prevented formal statistical analysis. However, in general, studies reviewed concluded no significant clinical or radiographic difference in outcome between interbody fusion and other treatments. Two small studies suggested interbody fusion is a better option in cases of definite instability. Interbody fusion only provided outcomes as good as instrumented posterolateral fusion. However, most studies were Level III, and hence, we remain limited in defining the exact role of interbody fusion-cases with clear instability appear to be most appropriate. Future work should use agreed-upon common outcome measures and definitions.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic MethodsFemaleHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLumbar VertebraeMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSpinal FusionSpondylolisthesisTreatment OutcomeDegenerative spondylolisthesisInterbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID27888353
OpenAlexW2554627372

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.