ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2019
Orthobiologics in minimally invasive lumbar fusion.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ceramic bone graft substitute vs autograft in XLIF: a prospective randomized single-center evaluation of radiographic and clinical outcomes.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 · 2022Trial
- Clinical evaluation of a growth factor bioavailability enhanced allograft in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- The Vertebral Bone Marrow clot as cell therapy and multifunctional bioscaffold for spinal fusion surgery: protocol for a randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Safety and efficacy of autologous bone marrow clot as a multifunctional bioscaffold for instrumental posterior lumbar fusion: a 1-year follow-up pilot study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Orthobiologics: Current role in Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2022Review
- A Pre-clinical Standard Operating Procedure for Evaluating Orthobiologics in anJournal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Review
- Synthetic Bone Graft Materials in Spine Fusion: Current Evidence and Future Trends.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Utilization of Orthobiologics by Sports Medicine Physicians: A Survey-based Study.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2021Article
- Trends in lumbar spinal fusion-a literature review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Review
- Strategies to Achieve Spinal Fusion in Multilevel Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: An Overview.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive (MI) spine surgery continues to gain popularity with patients and surgeons for its potential to decrease operative time and avoid complications commonly associated with open surgery. In the face of a changing surgical landscape, selecting the appropriate implant material to be used in MI lumbar fusion procedures will remain critically important. Various orthobiologic materials are available for use, including autologous and allogeneic bone graft, bone marrow aspirate (BMA), demineralized bone matrix (DBM), ceramics, and growth factors. The purpose of this review is to summarize the use and efficacy of currently available products, as well as highlight the development of novel therapeutic options.
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.