Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31908941›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2020

Comparison of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Peng Peng, Kangwu Chen, Hao Chen, Kai Zhang, Jiajia Sun, Peng Yang, Feng Zhou, Yu Liu, Huilin Yang, Haiqing Mao

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

Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Clinician-directed treatment guidelines.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peng PengDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Kangwu ChenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Hao ChenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Kai ZhangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Jiajia SunDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Peng YangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Feng ZhouDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Yu LiuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Huilin YangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Haiqing MaoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, China.
Soochow University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed.

resultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (

conclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: Compared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.

Indexed as

Lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesisMicroscopeMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionNavigationO-armTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID31908941
PMCPMC6939115
OpenAlexW2987669729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.