Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33389967›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2022

Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Maximilian Lenz, Kaliye Mohamud, Jan Bredow, Stavros Oikonomidis, Peer Eysel, Max Joseph Scheyerer

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A novel surgical approach using the "lateral corridor" for minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: a clinical series and technical note.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maximilian LenzDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Kaliye MohamudDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan BredowDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stavros OikonomidisDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Peer EyselDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Max Joseph ScheyererDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007-2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.

Indexed as

Anterior lumbar interbody fusionComplicationsL5/S1 fusionPosterior lumbar interbody fusionRisk factorsTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID33389967
PMCPMC8873994
OpenAlexW3121086763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.