Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34415448›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2021

Adult spinal deformity surgery: posterior three-column osteotomies vs anterior lordotic cages with posterior fusion. Complications, clinical and radiological results. A systematic review of the literature.

Quarto E, Zanirato A, Ursino C, Traverso G, Russo A, Formica M

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Quarto EGenova - Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, GE, Italy.
Zanirato AGenova - Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, GE, Italy.
Ursino CGenova - Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, GE, Italy.
Traverso GGenova - Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, GE, Italy.
Russo AGenova - Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, GE, Italy.
Formica MGenova - Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, GE, Italy. prof.matteformica@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2388-9693

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of our study is to analyse mid- to long-term severe adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery outcomes by comparing three-column osteotomies (3CO) and multiple anterior interbody fusion cages (AC). MATERIALS AND

methodsThe PRISMA flowchart was used to systematically review the literature. Only articles with a minimum 24-month follow-up were examined, and 11 articles were included. The following radiological parameters were observed: pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), Cobb angle and T1-sacrum plumbline. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores. The main complications were analysed, and the two groups were compared.

resultsExcept for age, the two populations were homogeneous. Both techniques had the same number of posterior instrumented levels (7.4 ± 1.7). The AC group had a mean 3 ± 1.4 interbody fusions per patient. In the PSO group, all patients had 1 3CO and 89.8% of the osteotomies were performed at L2 or L3 vertebrae. No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of clinical outcomes. Both techniques were effective in sagittal parameters restoration with a final PI-LL mismatch = 4.4°. The PSO group had a statistically higher rate of intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.036), major complications, pseudoarthrosis and dural tears (p < 0.001).

conclusionBoth PSO and multiple AC are effective in treating ASD. Multiple AC seems more suitable when treating older patients because of a lower intraoperative blood loss, lower rate of major complications and fewer number of revision surgeries.

Indexed as

LordosisSpinal FusionAdultHumansLumbar VertebraeOsteotomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome3-column osteotomyAdult spinal deformityAnterior intersomatic cagesPedicle subtraction osteotomySagittal alignment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.