Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805290›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2019

Validation of Pre-operative Templating for Total Disc Replacement Surgery.

Justin F M Hollenbeck, Jill A Fattor, Vikas Patel, Evalina Burger, Paul J Rullkoetter, Christopher M J Cain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2019. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Review
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.

Justin F M HollenbeckCenter for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
Jill A FattorDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, Colorado.
Vikas PatelDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, Colorado.
Evalina BurgerDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, Colorado.
Paul J RullkoetterCenter for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
Christopher M J CainDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, Colorado.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis was an analytic retrospective observational study. The aims were (1) to validate patient-specific templating process by comparing postoperative range of motion (ROM) with that predicted by the model, (2) to retrospectively determine the ideal implant size, height, configuration, and location to evaluate if the ROM achieved could have been improved, and (3) to correlate postoperative ROM and clinical outcome.

backgroundPrevious research revealed that after total disc replacement surgery, 34% of patients with less than 5° of postoperative ROM developed adjacent segment disease. The match between patient anatomy (size, facet orientation, disc height) and implant parameters are likely to affect postoperative ROM and clinical outcomes.

methodsSeventeen consecutive patients were implanted with 22 ProDisc-L devices between 2008 and 2015. Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of the implanted segment were constructed from preoperative computed tomography scans and virtually implanted with the ProDisc-L implant. ROM was determined with the endpoints of facet impingement in flexion and implant contact in extension. FE templating was used to determine the optimal implant size and location. ROM was then measured directly from flexion and extension radiographs and compared to predicted ROM. Pre and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were used to correlate ROM with clinical outcomes.

resultsNo significant difference was found between the actual and predicted ROM. The computational templating procedure identified an optimal ROM that was significantly greater than actual ROM. The ROM in our cohort could have been improved by an average of 1.2° or 12% had a different implant size or position been used.

conclusionsFE analyses accurately predicted ROM in this cohort and can facilitate selection of the optimal implant size and location that we believe will increase the chance of achieving clinical success with the application of this technology.

Indexed as

adjacent segment diseasefinite element modelinglow back painrange of motiontotal disc replacement

Identifiers

PMID30805290
PMCPMC6383453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.