ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2018
Surgical and Clinical Results of Minimally Invasive Spinal Fusion Surgery in an Unselected Patient Cohort of a Spinal Care Unit.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathway for enhanced recovery after spinal surgery-a systematic review of evidence for use of individual components.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and fusion outcomes of unilateral bi-portal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Traditional Hospital Settings, Part 2: Assessment of Surgical Safety in Medicare Beneficiaries.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Traditional Hospital Settings, Part 1: Multi-Center Assessment of Surgical Safety.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Automated machine learning-based model for the prediction of delirium in patients after surgery for degenerative spinal disease.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2023Article
- Assessing the Precision of Surgery Duration Estimation: A Retrospective Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Full-Endoscopic Foraminotomy with a Novel Large Endoscopic Trephine for Severe Degenerative Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis at LOrthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
- Quantification evaluation of structural autograft versus morcellized fragments autograft in patients who underwent single-level lumbar laminectomy.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the surgical results and to identify possible parameters influencing the clinical outcomes in an unselected patient collective undergoing minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in a spinal care unit.
methodsA total of 229 adult patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion between 2008 and 2016 were included in this retrospective analysis. Lumbar fusion was performed using transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) devices and posterolateral fusion. To eliminate confounding parameters, in all patients interbody fusion was indicated by lumbar degenerative pathologies, and surgery was performed using the same fusion device. Treatment efficacy was evaluated using scores describing pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]) and health impairment (EQ-5D, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]). The influence of patient age, obesity, active smoking status, and co-morbidities on clinical outcome and perioperative complications was analyzed.
resultsThe patient population reviewed had improved VAS (P
conclusionMinimally invasive spinal surgery is a safe and effective treatment option and may be superior to open surgery in subpopulations with significant co-morbidities and risk factors, such as elderly and obese patients as well as patients with an active smoking status.
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.