Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30909679›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2019

Sagittal Balance Correction Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of the Three Approaches.

Pierre-Olivier Champagne, Camille Walsh, Jocelyne Diabira, Marie-Élaine Plante, Zhi Wang, Ghassan Boubez, Daniel Shedid

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. 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

7 authors.

Pierre-Olivier ChampagneDivision of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.
Camille WalshDivision of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.
Jocelyne DiabiraDivision of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.
Marie-Élaine PlanteDivision of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.
Zhi WangDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.
Ghassan BoubezDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.
Daniel ShedidDivision of Neurosurgery, University of Montreal Medical Center (CHUM), Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designRetrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare three widely used interbody fusion approaches in regard to their ability to correct sagittal balance, including pelvic parameters. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Restoration of sagittal balance in lumbar spine surgery is associated with better postoperative outcomes. Various interbody fusion techniques can help to correct sagittal balance, with no clear consensus on which technique offers the best correction.

methodsThe charts and imaging of patients who have undergone surgery through either open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS TLIF), or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) were retrospectively reviewed. The following sagittal balance parameters were measured pre- and postoperatively: segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, disk height, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence. Data on postoperative complications were gathered.

resultsOnly OLIF managed to significantly improve segmental lordosis (4.4°, p <0.001) and lumbar lordosis (4.8°, p =0.049). All approaches significantly augmented disk height, with OLIF having the greatest effect (3.7°, p <0.001). No approaches were shown to significantly correct pelvic tilt. Pelvic incidence remained unchanged in all approaches. Open TLIF was the only approach with a higher rate of postoperative complications (33%, p =0.009).

conclusionsThe OLIF approach might offer greater correction of sagittal balance over open and MIS TLIF, mainly in regard to segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and disk height. MIS TLIF, although offering more limited access than open TLIF, was not inferior to open TLIF in regard to sagittal balance correction. A higher rate of complications was shown for open TLIF than the other approaches, possibly due to its more invasive nature.

Indexed as

Interbody fusionLateral interbody fusionMinimally invasiveSagittal balanceTransforaminal interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID30909679
PMCPMC6547387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.