Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29662742›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2018

Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior-Posterior Interbody Fusion in the Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Junction: A Cost Analysis.

Timo Stubig, Malik Ahmed, Amir Ghasemi, Luigi Aurelio Nasto, Michael Grevitt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2018. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Decline of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement.Journal of spine research and surgery · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022
    Article
  5. Total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: single centre 20 years experience.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 · 2020
    Article
  6. Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2019
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Timo StubigMedical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Malik AhmedQueens Medical Center, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
Amir GhasemiQueens Medical Center, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
Luigi Aurelio NastoQueens Medical Center, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
Michael GrevittQueens Medical Center, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
Queen's Medical Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designProspective observational cohort study.

objectivesTo analyze clinical and economic results in patients with degenerative disc disease in the lumbar area for patients who received combined anterior and posterior fusion or total disc replacement (TDR).

methodsThe study included 75 patients, 38 in the fusion group and 37 in the TDR group, who received either anterior/posterior fusion or TDR for lumbar disc disease from January 2005 to December 2008 with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. We collected data with regard to clinical parameters, demographics, visual analogue scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, SF-36 and SF-6D data, surgery time, amount of blood loss, transfusion of blood products, number of levels, duration of hospital stay, and complications. For cost analysis, general infrastructure, theatre costs, as well as implant costs were examined, leading to primary hospital costs. Furthermore, average revision costs were examined, based on the actual data. Statistical analysis was performed using

resultsThere was a higher surgery time, more blood loss, and longer hospital stay for the fusion group, compared with the TDR group. In addition, the hospital costs for the primary procedure and revision were 35% higher in the fusion group. The clinical data in terms of SF-36 and SF-6D showed no difference between these 2 groups.

conclusionsTDR is a good alternative to anterior and posterior lumbar fusion in terms of short follow-up analysis for clinical data and cost analysis. General advice cannot be given due to missing data for long-term costs in terms of surgical treatment of adjacent level or further fusion techniques.

Indexed as

anterior-posterior fusioncost-effectivenessDDDdegenerative disc diseasehospital coststotal disc replacement

Identifiers

PMID29662742
PMCPMC5898675
OpenAlexW2736360279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.