SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison between topping-off technology and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dynamic Stabilization Adjacent to Fusion versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis.BioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Rigid, Dynamic, and Hybrid Stabilization Systems in Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The influence of the interfacing angle between the pedicle screw and support rods on the clinical outcomes after posterior lumbar-sacral topping-off surgery: A retrospective clinical study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Observational
- The Impact of Spine Pathology on Posterior Ligamentous Complex Structure and Function.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023Review
- Comparison of long-term outcomes of spinal fusion surgeries supplemented with "topping-off" implants in lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Review
- Dynamic Fixation Techniques for the Prevention of Adjacent Segment Disease: A Retrospective Controlled Study.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
- Selection of the fusion and fixation range in the intervertebral surgery to correct thoracolumbar and lumbar tuberculosis: a retrospective clinical study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe difference between topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in postoperative outcomes is still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare all available data on outcomes of topping-off technique and PLIF in the treatment of chronic low back pain.
methodsArticles in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were reviewed. Parameters included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease, range of motion (ROM), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analog scale (VAS), visual analog scale of back, (VAS-B) and visual analog scale leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, complication rates.
resultsRates of proximal RASD (P = .001) and CASD (P = .03), postoperative VAS-B (P = .0001) were significantly lower in topping-off group than that in PLIF group. There was no significant difference in distal RASD (P = .07), postoperative GLL (P = .71), postoperative upper intervertebral ROM (P = .19), postoperative VAS-L (P = .08), DOI (P = .30), postoperative JOA (P = .18), EBL (P = .21) and duration of surgery (P = .49), reoperation rate (P = .16), complication rates (P = .31) between topping-off group and PLIF.
conclusionsTopping-off can effectively prevent the adjacent segment disease from progressing after lumbar internal fixation, which is be more effective in proximal segments. Topping-off technique was more effective in improving subjective feelings of patents rather than objective motor functions. However, no significant difference between topping-off technique and PLIF can be found in the rates of complications.
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.