Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31311556›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar fusion: a case-controlled study.

Cong Jin, Minghua Xie, Lei He, Wenbin Xu, Weiqi Han, Wengqing Liang, Yu Qian

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

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cong JinDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Zhongxing North Road, Shaoxing, 312000, Zhejiang, China.
Minghua XieDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Zhongxing North Road, Shaoxing, 312000, Zhejiang, China.
Lei HeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Zhongxing North Road, Shaoxing, 312000, Zhejiang, China.
Wenbin XuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Weiqi HanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Zhongxing North Road, Shaoxing, 312000, Zhejiang, China.
Wengqing LiangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Zhongxing North Road, Shaoxing, 312000, Zhejiang, China.
Yu QianDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Zhongxing North Road, Shaoxing, 312000, Zhejiang, China. qianyuspine@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-0164
Shaoxing People's Hospital · CNSir Run Run Shaw Hospital · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China No.81572126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study assessed clinical and radiographic outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in comparison with posterior reoperation for adjacent segment disease (ASD).

methodsA total of 26 patients with symptomatic ASD after lumbar fusion were included in this retrospective case-controlled study conducted from January 2013 to December 2018. Twelve patients underwent single-segment OLIF with or without posterior instrumentation (OLIF group), whereas 14 patients underwent posterior reoperation (posterior approach group). The clinical outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic outcomes were compared.

resultsThe operative time (60.6 ± 16.1 min vs. 150.9 ± 28.5 min, respectively; P < 0.05) and the blood loss in the OLIF group 89.2 ± 49.0 ml vs. 340.7 ± 130.2 ml, respectively; P < 0.05) were significantly lower than those in the posterior group. The hospital stay was lower in the OLIF group than in the posterior approach group (6.6 ± 1.3 days vs. 9.5 ± 2.5 days, respectively; P < 0.05). In the posterior approach group, 6 of 14 patients (42.8%) had issue with dural tear, while none in the OLIF group had such issue (P < 0.05). The ODI score (13.2 ± 4.2 vs. 19.2 ± 7.2, respectively; P = 0.014) and the VAS back pain score were lower in the OLIF group postoperatively and at last follow-up. In the OLIF group, the radiographic outcomes were significantly improved postoperatively.

conclusionsDue to our results and early experiences, we proposed that OLIF was safe and effective for ASD. Compared with posterior reoperation, OLIF results in shorter operative time and hospital stay, lesser blood loss, and lower risk of dural injury.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSpinal FusionAdjacent segment diseaseLumbar interbody fusionOblique

Identifiers

PMID31311556
PMCPMC6636144
OpenAlexW2958609588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.