ArticleGlobal spine journal2018
Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior-Posterior Interbody Fusion in the Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Junction: A Cost Analysis.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The First Grade III Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Treated With the Novel 360° Artificial Disc/Artificial Facet Replacement Solution.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- The Decline of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement.Journal of spine research and surgery · 2024Article
- Lumbar Disc Replacement Versus Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of Complications and Clinical Outcomes.Orthopedic reviews · 2024Article
- Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Failure of lumbar disc surgery: management by fusion or arthroplasty?International orthopaedics · 2019Review
- 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
- Standalone titanium/polyetheretherketone interbody cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Clinical and radiological results at 24 months.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.