Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34513367›Full record

ReviewCureus2021

Investigational Research: Timeline, Trials, and Future Directions of Spinal Disc Arthroplasty.

Brian Fiani, Jacob M Nanney, Akash Villait, Manraj Sekhon, Thao Doan

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Decline of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement.Journal of spine research and surgery · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brian FianiNeurosurgery, Desert Regional Medical Center, Palm Springs, USA.
Jacob M NanneyCollege of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Akash VillaitOsteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, Glendale, USA.
Manraj SekhonMedicine, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, USA.
Thao DoanSchool of Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA.
Midwestern University · USOakland University · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal disc arthroplasty (SDA) has been a rising alternative to fusion for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD). This review aims to provide an overview of the timeline, approvals, and limitations of SDA through analysis of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved trials. Clinical studies have shown more successful outcomes when comparing cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, with the key benefits of decreased risk of nerve root compression and adjacent disc disease. CDA is currently approved by the FDA for one- and two-level disc pathologies. However, there are no approved trials for three-level or more cervical pathologies. The FDA approved its usage for the treatment of one-level lumbar disc pathologies in 2007 and recently approved two-level disc pathologies in 2020. Thoracic SDA has not been approved by the FDA, and there are no currently occurring clinical trials. While multilevel SDA has been approved in the cervical and lumbar spine, it has not been approved in more than two adjacent vertebral levels. Based on these clinical studies, future research is needed to compare the success of SDA for three-level or more disc pathologies. There have been recent publications showing promising results, though no FDA-approved clinical trials exist. Furthermore, a hybrid construct has been a recent surgical method to treat multilevel DDD. In this approach, arthroplasty and fusion techniques are combined in alternating fashion at adjacent levels to treat two- and three-level disc disease. Hybrid arthroplasty compared with SDA is currently being studied in clinical trials. As such, long-term research with FDA-approved clinical trials is needed to understand the benefits and limitations of different approaches in the treatment of DDD.

Indexed as

adjacent segment diseaseartificial disccervical disc degenerationdegenerative spine diseasedisc arthroplastyhybridinterbody devicelumbar disc degenerationpseudoarthrosisrange of motion

Identifiers

PMID34513367
PMCPMC8405360
OpenAlexW3185815337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.