Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31916002›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2020

Revision surgery of spinal dynamic implants: a literature review and algorithm proposal.

R Cecchinato, A Bourghli, I Obeid

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Vertebropexy as a semi-rigid ligamentous alternative to lumbar spinal fusion.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 · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

R CecchinatoGSpine4, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. dott.cecchinato@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3570-8178
A BourghliOrthopedic and Spinal Surgery Department, Kingdom Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
I ObeidOrthopedic Spinal Surgery Unit 1, Pellegrin Hospital, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33076, Bordeaux Cedex, France.
Hôpital Pellegrin · FRIstituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITRiyadh Armed Forces Hospital · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDynamic stabilization of the spine has been performed since the 1990s with the double purpose of restoring spinal segmental stability and allowing residual movement at the operated level. When we take into account the different motion-preserving devices and the spinal areas where they are applied, we can identify three categories of spinal implants: anterior cervical, anterior lumbar, and posterior lumbar. However, as in all prosthetic procedures performed in orthopedic surgery, the life span of a joint replacement device is a central topic of discussion, and this is true also for spinal dynamic devices, being revision surgery a complex procedure in specific cases. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a literature review on the different dynamic spinal implants and the most common causes of failure, providing clinical cases as illustrative options for revision surgery.

resultsThe review of the literature showed a 11.3% to 22.6% revision rate in posterior lumbar dynamic systems, with a peak of 40.6% in case of adjacent segment disease. In lumbar TDRs, infection and severe dislocations are the most frequent causes of anterior revisions, while posterior pedicle screw fixation could be a suitable option in minimal subsidence or TDR displacement. An algorithm for the planning of revision surgery is proposed.

conclusionsSurgical revision of spinal dynamic implants could be a demanding surgery especially in anterior approaches. Anterior cervical revision remains globally safe, but careful preoperative evaluation of vessels and ureter are suggested to avoid intraoperative complications in the lumbar spine. In posterior revision, a proper sagittal alignment of the spine should be restored. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresProstheses and ImplantsReoperationAlgorithmsHumansSpineDynamic spinal implantsMotion-preserving surgeryRevision surgeryTotal disc replacement

Identifiers

PMID31916002
OpenAlexW2998778838

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.