Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32197034›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2020

Elderly Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Have Similar Clinical Outcomes, Perioperative Complications, and Fusion Rates As Their Younger Counterparts.

Graham Seow-Hng Goh, You Wei Adriel Tay, Ming Han Lincoln Liow, Cheryl Gatot, Zhixing Marcus Ling, Poh Ling Fong, Reuben Chee Cheong Soh, Chang Ming Guo, Wai-Mun Yue, Seang-Beng Tan and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Graham Seow-Hng GohG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
You Wei Adriel TayG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Ming Han Lincoln LiowG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Cheryl GatotG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Zhixing Marcus LingG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Poh Ling FongG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Reuben Chee Cheong SohG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Chang Ming GuoG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Wai-Mun YueW. M. Yue, The Orthopaedic Centre, Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, Singapore.
Seang-Beng TanS. B. Tan, Orthopaedic and Spine Clinic, Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, Singapore.
John Li-Tat ChenG. S.-H. Goh, Y. W. A. Tay, M. H. L. Liow, C. Gatot, Z. M. Ling, P. L. Fong, R. C. C. Soh, C. M. Guo, J. L.-T. Chen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Changi General Hospital · SGMount Elizabeth Hospital · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough several studies have suggested that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) may be especially beneficial in the elderly population due to lower operative morbidity and faster postoperative recovery, there are limited studies investigating the functional outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction in elderly patients after MIS-TLIF. Furthermore, existing studies had substantial clinical, diagnostic, and surgical heterogeneity. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked if elderly patients could experience comparable (1) patient-reported pain, disability and quality of life, (2) perioperative complications, and (3) radiological fusion rates as their younger counterparts after MIS-TLIF.

methodsProspectively collected registry data of patients undergoing primary, single-level, MIS-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2012 and 2014 were reviewed. We included 168 patients, 39 of whom were at least 70 years old. Of the 129 patients younger than 70 years old, propensity-score matching was used to select 39 younger controls with adjustment for sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and baseline clinical outcomes. Perioperative complications and radiologic data were compared.

resultsThere was no difference in back pain (mean difference -0.3 [95% confidence interval -1.0 to 0.5]; p = 0.52); leg pain (mean difference -0.1 [95% CI to 0.6-0.5]; p = 0.85); Oswestry Disability Index (mean difference -2.9 [95% CI -8.0 to 2.2]; p = 0.26); and SF-36 physical (mean difference 3.0 [95% CI -0.7 to 6.8]; p = 0.107); and mental component summary (mean difference 1.9 [95% CI -4.5 to 8.2]; p = 0.56); up to 2 years postoperatively; 85% of younger patients and 85% of elderly patients were satisfied (p > 0.99) while 87% and 80%, respectively, had fulfilled expectations (p = 0.36). Four perioperative adverse events occurred in each group. There was also no difference in the rate of fusion (87% in younger patients and 90% in elderly patients; p = 0.135).

conclusionsWhen clinical and surgical heterogeneity were minimized, elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion not only had comparable rates of perioperative complications but also experienced similar improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. A high rate of satisfaction was achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresAgedAged, 80 and overDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMalePain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionRegistries

Identifiers

PMID32197034
PMCPMC7282595
OpenAlexW2991376890

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.