Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141578›Full record

ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2020

Perioperative adverse events after different fusion approaches for single-level lumbar spondylosis.

Raj J Gala, Taylor D Ottesen, Joseph B Kahan, Arya G Varthi, Jonathan N Grauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. ALIF vs. posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: comparable efficacy but elevated risk of severe complications-a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Raj J GalaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine.
Taylor D OttesenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine.
Joseph B KahanDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine.
Arya G VarthiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine.
Jonathan N GrauerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain from lumbar spondylosis affects a large proportion of the population. In select cases, lumbar fusion may be considered. However, cohort studies have not shown clear differences in long-term outcomes between PSF, TLIF, ALIF, and AP fusion. Thus, differences in perioperative complications might affect choice between these procedures for the given diagnosis. The current study seeks to compare perioperative adverse events for patients with lumbar spondylosis treated with single-level: posterior spinal fusion (PSF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), or combined anterior and posterior lumbar fusion (AP fusion).

methodsPatients with a diagnosis of lumbar spondylosis who underwent single-level lumbar fusion without decompression were identified in the 2010-2016 National Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Patients were categorized based on their procedure (PSF, TLIF, ALIF, or AP fusion). Unadjusted Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-squared tests were used to compare demographics and comorbid factors. Analysis was secondarily done with propensity score matching to address potential differences in patient selection between the study cohorts.

resultsIn total, 1816 patients were identified: PSF n=322, TLIF n=800, ALIF n=460, AP fusion n=234. The procedures did not have different thirty-day individual or aggregated (any, serious, minor, or infection) adverse events. Further, propensity score matched analysis also revealed no differences in individual or aggregated thirty-day perioperative events.

conclusionThe current study demonstrates a lack of difference in thirty-day perioperative adverse events for different fusion procedures performed for lumbar spondylosis, consistent with prior longer-term outcome studies. These findings suggest that patient/surgeon preference and other factors not captured here should be considered to determine the best surgical technique for the select patients with the given diagnosis who are considered for lumbar fusion. SUMMARY SENTENCE: Using the NSQIP 2010-2016 databases, this study showed that perioperative adverse events were similar for different surgical approaches of single-level fusion for single-level lumbar spondylosis.

Indexed as

Anemia requiring transfusionAnterior lumbar interbody fusionDeep vein thrombosisMyocardial infarctionPosterior lumbar fusionPostoperative complicationsSpondylosisSurgical site infectionTransformational lumbar interbody fusionUrinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID35141578
PMCPMC8820031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.