Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31175483›Full record

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

Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis.

Yu-Cheng Yao, Hsi-Hsien Lin, Po-Hsin Chou, Shih-Tien Wang, Ming-Chau Chang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Allografts and Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2021
    Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Yu-Cheng YaoDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Rd. Beitou District, Taipei, 112, Taiwan, ROC.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7555-4321
Hsi-Hsien LinDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Rd. Beitou District, Taipei, 112, Taiwan, ROC.
Po-Hsin ChouDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Rd. Beitou District, Taipei, 112, Taiwan, ROC.
Shih-Tien WangDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Rd. Beitou District, Taipei, 112, Taiwan, ROC.
Ming-Chau ChangDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shih-Pai Rd. Beitou District, Taipei, 112, Taiwan, ROC. mcchang@vghtpe.gov.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4799-9339

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to quantify the interbody bone graft area following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using traditional open and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) and investigate their correlations with rates of fusion, complications, and clinical outcomes.

methodsPatients undergoing TLIF of 1 or 2 levels between October 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively included. Fusion and bone graft areas were assessed with computed tomography (CT) at 6 months postoperatively. The bone graft area ratio was defined as the bone graft area divided by the average endplate area. The distributions of bone graft area within the discs were also recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires.

resultsIn total, 77 disc levels in 57 patients were analyzed. The fusion rate was 79.1% in the open group and 82.4% in the MIS group (p = 0.718). Clinical outcomes of both groups improved significantly. Changes in VAS and ODI scores at 12 months postoperatively were comparable between groups. Bone graft area ratio was not significantly different between the two groups (open, 38 ± 10.8%; MIS, 38.1 ± 9.0%, p = 0.977). Analysis of bone graft distribution revealed that the contralateral-dorsal part of the disc had the lowest bone graft area. The bone graft area ratio was significantly higher in the solid union group (39.2 ± 10.4%) than in the non-solid union group (33.5 ± 6.4%, p = 0.048).

conclusionsThe fusion rates, bone graft area ratios, clinical outcomes, and complications were similar between MIS and open TLIF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

Bone TransplantationMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionHumansLumbar VertebraePostoperative PainRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBone graft areaClinical outcomeEndplate preparationFusion rateMISTLIF

Identifiers

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.