Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32871566›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical focus2020

Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

Francis C Lovecchio, Avani S Vaishnav, Michael E Steinhaus, Yahya A Othman, Catherine Himo Gang, Sravisht Iyer, Steven J McAnany, Todd J Albert, Sheeraz A Qureshi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical focus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors.

Francis C Lovecchio1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Avani S Vaishnav1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Michael E Steinhaus1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Yahya A Othman2Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Alsad, Doha, Qatar; and.
Catherine Himo Gang1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Sravisht Iyer1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Steven J McAnany1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Todd J Albert1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Sheeraz A Qureshi1Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.

Funding

Disparities in COVID Disease Severity and Outcomes in New York CityUL1TR002384 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JULIANNE L IMPERATO-MCGINLEY · 2017 to 2026
$86.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology.

methodsThe authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted.

resultsA total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016).

conclusionsCompared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

Indexed as

Internal FixatorsAdultAgedFemaleHumansLordosisLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRetrospective StudiesSpinal Fusionactual segmental lordosisALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionALL = anterior longitudinal ligamentcage lordotic angleinterbody cageLIF = lumbar interbody fusionLLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionlumbar lordosisminimally invasive spine surgeryMIS = minimally invasive surgeryPI = pelvic incidencePT = pelvic tiltSL = segmental lordosisSS = sacral slopeTLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID32871566
PMCPMC11296387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.