ArticleBMC surgery2021
A modified method to treat severe asymptomatic pre-existing degeneration of adjacent segment: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- A retrospective comparative study of postoperative sagittal balance in isthmic L5-S1 spondylolisthesis using single segment or two-segment pedicle screw fixation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPre-existing degeneration of adjacent segment is an important risk factor for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD), but only limited and controversial studies have addressed its management.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with symptomatic degeneration of the L5/S1 segment warranting surgical interference and severe asymptomatic degeneration of the L4/5 segment. Of these patients, those who underwent interbody fusion of the causative (L5/S1) segment and distraction of the intervertebral space and facet fusion of the adjacent L4/5 segment were included in Group A (n = 103), while those who underwent interbody fusion of both the L5/S1 and L4/5 segments were included in Group B (n = 81). Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated.
resultsMean follow-up time was 58.5 months (range, 48-75 months). We found no significant difference in clinical outcomes or incidence of ASD in the L3/4 segment between Groups A and B. Compared with Group B, Group A experienced less bleeding (315 ± 84 ml vs. 532 ± 105 ml), shorter operation time (107 ± 34 min vs. 158 ± 55 min) and lower costs (US $13,830 ± $2640 vs. US $16,020 ± $3380; P < 0.05). In Group A, the disc height ratio (DHR) of the L4/5 segment was significantly increased from a preoperative value of 0.40 ± 0.13 to a last-follow-up value of 0.53 ± 0.18 (P < 0.05), while the degree of canal stenosis (DCS) was decreased from a preoperative value of 34.3 ± 11.2% to a last-follow-up value of 15.9 ± 9.3 % (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThis modified method could be effective in treating severe asymptomatic pre-existing degeneration of adjacent segment in the lumbar spine.
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.