Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29995169›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2019

Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Niek Koenders, Alison Rushton, Martin L Verra, Paul C Willems, Thomas J Hoogeboom, J Bart Staal

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06989632 (Total Lumbar Disc Prosthesis and Subsequent Work Activity 5 Years After Total Lumbar Disc Replacement), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT06989632 completednot on this map

Total Lumbar Disc Prosthesis and Subsequent Work Activity 5 Years After Total Lumbar Disc Replacement

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ValenciaRan2008 to 2025Enrolled130ConditionsLumbar Disc Degeneration, Lumbar Disc Disease, Sciatica, Lumbar Disc HerniationArmsTotal lumbar disc prosthesis (Baguera®L, Spineart, Switzerland)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prognostic factors for outcome following lumbar spine fusion surgery: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A pre-, peri- and postoperative rehabilitation pathway for lumbar fusion surgery (REACT): a nonrandomized controlled clinical trial.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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Predictors of poor outcome following lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a prospective observational study to derive two clinical prediction rules using British Spine Registry data.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 · 2023
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Effects of bilateral erector spinae plane block for posterior lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Correlation study of radiographic characteristics and operative difficulty in lateral-anterior lumbar interbody fusion (LaLIF) at the L4-5 level: a novel classification for case selection.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 · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Niek KoendersOrthopaedics Department, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. niek.koenders@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-7142-9811
Alison RushtonCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8114-7669
Martin L VerraDepartment of Physiotherapy, Insel Group, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3933-8020
Paul C WillemsMaastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5996-7548
Thomas J HoogeboomIQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2103-419X
J Bart StaalIQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0083-6380
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLHAN University of Applied Sciences · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLumbar spinal fusion (LSF) is frequently and increasingly used in lumbar degenerative disorders despite conflicting results and recommendations. A thorough understanding of patient outcomes after LSF is required to inform decisions regarding surgery and to improve post-surgery management. The current study aims to evaluate the course of pain and disability in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine after first-time LSF.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of pain and disability outcomes in prospective cohort studies up to 31 March 2017 is identified in four electronic databases. Two independent researchers determined study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (modified Quality in Prognostics tool). A random effects model (maximum likelihood) was used to calculate means and 95% confidence intervals. The primary analysis was performed on complete data, and a sensitivity analysis was performed on all data.

resultsTwenty-five studies (n = 1777 participants) were included. The mean (95% confidence interval) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain (n = 9 studies) decreased from 64 (57-71) pre-surgery to 20 (16-24) at 24-month follow-up. Leg pain (n = 9 studies) improved from VAS 70 (65-74) pre-surgery to 17 (12-23) at 24-month interval. Disability (n = 12 studies), measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, decreased from 44.8 (40.1-49.4) pre-surgery to 17.3 (11.9-22.8) at 24-month follow-up. The sensitivity analysis yielded similar results.

conclusionThere is a substantial improvement in pain and disability after first-time LSF for degenerative disorders. However, long-term outcomes indicate that leg pain might be more reduced and for a longer period of time than axial back pain and disability. Registration PROSPERO CRD42015026922. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBack PainDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedPainPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisProspective StudiesSpinal DiseasesDiscogenic low back painHerniated discPainSpinal fusionSpinal stenosisSpondylolisthesis

Identifiers

PMID29995169
OpenAlexW2791346797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.