ReviewMinimally invasive surgery2018
Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery.
Review in Minimally invasive surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Demineralized Bone Matrix and Fibers in Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Bone Grafting Options for Single-Level TLIF: So Many Options, What Is the Evidence?International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Understanding the Future Prospects of Synergizing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery with Ceramics and Regenerative Cellular Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Vascularized Scapular Bone Grafting: Indications, Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Alternatives.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2021Review
- Graft Materials and Biologics for Spinal Interbody Fusion.Biomedicines · 2019Review
- An evaluation of biomaterials and osteobiologics for arthrodesis achievement in spine surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Vascularized Iliac Bone Graft for Complex Closure During Spinal Deformity Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Article
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the use of minimally invasive spine (MIS) fusion approaches continues to grow, increased scrutiny is being placed on its outcomes and efficacies against traditional open fusion surgeries. While there are many factors that contribute to the success of achieving spinal arthrodesis, selecting the optimal fusion biologic remains a top priority. With an ever-expanding market of bone graft substitutes, it is important to evaluate each of their use as it pertains to MIS techniques. This review will summarize the important characteristics and properties of various spinal biologics used in minimally invasive lumbar surgeries and compare their fusion rates via a systematic review of published literature.
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.