ArticleMedicine2020
A retrospective controlled study protocol of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the current literature, for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis, the direct comparison of clinical outcomes and perioperative complications between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is limited. Whether the therapeutic effect of TLIF is better than that of PLIF is still controversial. In this retrospective controlled study, our aim was to compare their clinical outcomes and radiological results of the above two stabilization approaches after 1-year follow-up period.
methodsThis investigation was approved via the Institutional Review committee of China-Japan friendship hospital. This was a retrospective single-center analysis of subjects. We reviewed the patients with spondylolisthesis treated with TLIF or PLIF between July 2016 and February 2019 in our hospital. Patients with these conditions will be included: with the radiological evidence of degenerative lumbar spondylolismia with leg pain and/or low back pain, or the neurogenic claudication after failure of conventional conservative treatment for more than 6 months. The patients who received 3 levels or more intervertebral fusion levels were excluded. Patients without a completed medical history were excluded. Patients who had a history of lumbar spine surgery were also excluded. Clinical outcomes in our follow-up included functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic such as spondylolisthesis degree. The radiographs were obtained at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months during the outpatient follow-up.
resultsThis protocol will provide a solid theoretical basis for exploring which technique is better in treatment of spondylolisthesis.
trial registrationThis study protocol was registered in Research Registry (number: researchregistry6032).
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.