Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128289›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2018

Optimal medial transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach with five extensive options: A simulated study on three-dimensional digital reconstructed images.

Ai-Min Wu, Xun-Lin Li, Hai-Jun Tian, Kai Zhang, Chang-Qing Zhao, Sun-Ren Sheng, Yan Lin, Wen-Fei Ni, Xiang-Yang Wang, Jie Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ai-Min WuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implants, Shanghai 200011, China.
Xun-Lin LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implants, Shanghai 200011, China.
Hai-Jun TianDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implants, Shanghai 200011, China.
Kai ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implants, Shanghai 200011, China.
Chang-Qing ZhaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implants, Shanghai 200011, China.
Sun-Ren ShengDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhejiang Spine Surgery Centre, Orthopaedic Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of the Wenzhou Medical University, The Second School of Medicine Wenzhou Medical University, The Key Orthopaedic Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou 325035, China.
Yan LinDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhejiang Spine Surgery Centre, Orthopaedic Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of the Wenzhou Medical University, The Second School of Medicine Wenzhou Medical University, The Key Orthopaedic Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou 325035, China.
Wen-Fei NiDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhejiang Spine Surgery Centre, Orthopaedic Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of the Wenzhou Medical University, The Second School of Medicine Wenzhou Medical University, The Key Orthopaedic Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou 325035, China.
Xiang-Yang WangDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhejiang Spine Surgery Centre, Orthopaedic Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of the Wenzhou Medical University, The Second School of Medicine Wenzhou Medical University, The Key Orthopaedic Laboratory of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou 325035, China.
Jie ZhaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implants, Shanghai 200011, China.
Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital · CNWenzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study is to use 3D digital lumbar models to investigate and simulate the optimal posterior operative approach for safe decompression and insertion of an interbody cage.

methodsThirty lumbar spine (L3-S1) computed tomography data are collected for 3D reconstruction. We cut medial half part of the superior facet and define the distance between the margin of the operative side of the spinous process and the medial margin of the cut superior facet as "medial distance (MD)". Then, we cut the total superior facet and define the distance between the margin of the operative side of the spinous process and the lateral side of the junction of the pedicle and the vertebral body as "extend distance (ED)". The feasible insertion of the current standard width size (10 mm and 12 mm) interbody cages was assessed by the two aforementioned MD and ED approaches. Besides the ED, we also simulate four other extensive options of lateral upper, lateral lower, vertical upper and lower and transmedian contralateral decompression on 3D digital lumbar model.

resultsThe MD increased from 13.48 ± 1.28 mm at L3/4 to 18.05 ± 1.43 mm at L5/S1, and the ED increased from 16.64 ± 1.34 mm at L3/4 to 21.12 ± 1.62 mm at L5/S1. To insert a 10-mm-wide cage, 16.7% (left) and 13.3% (right) of MD for L3/4 is not enough, 60.0% (left) and 46.7% (right) of MD for L3/4 is subsafe, 13.3% (left) and 16.7% (right) of MD for L4/5 is subsafe and all others are safe. To insert a 12-mm-wide cage, 76.7% (left) and 60.0% (right) of MD for L3/4 is not enough, 20.0% (left) and 30.0% (right) of MD for L3/4 is subsafe, 13.3%% (left) and 16.7% (right) of MD for L4/5 is not enough, 63.3% (left) and 56.7% (right) of MD for L4/5 is subsafe and 6.7% (left) and 10.0% (right) of MD for L5/S1 is subsafe, whereas 33.3%% (left) and 30.0% (right) of ED for L3/4 is subsafe, 3.3% (left) and 3.3% (right) of ED for L4/5 is subsafe and all others are safe. Besides the ED, on 3D models, four other extensive options could be simulated too and may need to be performed for different special individuals.

conclusionOur 3D digital image study provides a feasible optimal medial transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach with five extensive options on lower lumbar region. It can provide safe lumbar decompression and interbody fusion in most population. In addition, surgeons can choose the different extensive options for special individual conditions. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: Transforminal lumbar interbody fusion is very common used for lumbar degenerative diseases. The optimal medial transforminal lumbar interbody fusion with five options provide a safe and precise approach for surgeons in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Indexed as

3D imagesAnatomicLumbar spineTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID30128289
PMCPMC6098232
OpenAlexW2887854513

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.