ArticleRevista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT2020
Minimally invasive spine surgery: evaluation of clinical and functional outcomes and their correlation with the return to work.
Article in Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skill-Learning-Based Trajectory Planning for Robotic Vertebral Plate Cutting: Personalization Through Surgeon Technique Integration and Neural Network Prediction.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Incidence of Dural Tears in Open versus Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Single-Center Prospective Study.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntervertebral disc changes are a multi-factorial problem whose main clinical feature is pain. Studies show that when clinical treatments fail, the proposed surgical treatments frequently present unsatisfactory results. Traditional lumbar arthrodesis causes important clinical and functional changes that can result in complications and jeopardize the patients' quality of life.
objectivesThis study aims to investigate the clinical and functional results of minimally invasive spine surgery in patients with a clinical diagnosis of low-back or sciatic pain and segmental instability, finally correlating these results with the patients' return to work.
methodsPatients signed an informed consent form and were clinical and radiographically re-evaluated by independent professionals in the pre- and postoperative periods. Evaluation methods used the Oswestry disability index, as well as visual analog scale and Medical Outcomes Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores. We also retrieved epidemiological data, information on work resumption, and bone consolidation evaluations from the medical records.
resultsWe evaluated 19 patients who had been operated on 33 levels; visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index scores were initially reduced from 10% to 2% and from 64% to 28%, respectively. SF-36 scores were significantly higher in 5 of the 7 questionnaire scales at the end of the follow-up period. Most patients (68.4%) did not return to work after surgery; the others returned 2 to 67 months after the procedure. All patients received social security benefits after the surgery.
conclusionAlthough the procedure presented positive results, it did not result in a satisfactory return-to-work rate. Our results should be analyzed in view of the low educational level and income of the patients, the manual nature of their labor, and the validity of social security benefits.
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.