Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35498212›Full record

ArticleComputational intelligence and neuroscience2022

Analysis of Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion at Lumbosacral Spine.

Shengtao Dong, Jie Li, Xiaomeng Jia, Jieyang Zhu, Yaoning Chen, Bo Yuan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Shengtao DongDepartment of Spine Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116023, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5761-026X
Jie LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116023, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6348-4098
Xiaomeng JiaDepartment of Oncology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116023, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8636-5654
Jieyang ZhuDepartment of Spine Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116023, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6850-4254
Yaoning ChenDepartment of Spine Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116023, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6773-5998
Bo YuanDepartment of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116023, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7503-1499
Dalian Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) has been considered as a serious complication from changes in the biological stress pattern after spinal fusion. The sagittal balance significantly associated with lumbar loading is largely dependent on L5-S1 segment. However, the evidence indicating risk factors for radiological and symptomatic ASD after minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) remains insufficient. Methods: This single-central retrospective study recruited patients with lumbosacral degeneration receiving MIS-TLIF at the L5-S1 level from January 2015 to December 2018. The targeted variables included demographic information, radiological indicators, surgery-related parameters, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) extracted from the electronic medical system by natural language processing. In these patients, a minimum of 3-year follow-up was done. After reviewing the preoperative and postoperative follow-up digital radiographs, patients were assigned to radiological ASD group (disc height narrowing ≥3 mm, progressive slipping ≥3 mm, angular motion >10°, and osteophyte formation >3 mm), symptomatic ASD group, and control group. We identified potential predictors for radiological and symptomatic ASD with the service of stepwise logistic regression analysis. Results: Among the 157 consecutive patients treated with MIS-TLIF in our department, 16 cases (10.2%) were diagnosed with radiological ASD at 3-year follow-up. The clinical evaluation did not reveal suspicious risk factors, but several significant differences were confirmed in radiological indicators. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed postoperative PI, postoperative DA, and ∆PI-LL in radiological ASD group were significantly different from those in control group. Nevertheless, for patients diagnosed with simultaneously radiological and symptomatic ASD, postoperative DA and postoperative PT as risk factors significantly affected the clinical outcome following MIS-TLIF. Conclusion: In this study, while approximately 10% of lumbosacral degenerations develop radiographic ASD, prognosis-related symptomatic ASD was shown not to be a frequent postoperative complication. Postoperative PI, postoperative DA, and mismatched PI-LL are risk factors for radiological ASD, and postoperative DA and postoperative PT are responsible for the occurrence of symptomatic ASD following MIS-TLIF. These radiological risk factors demonstrate that restoration of normal sagittal balance is an effective measure to optimize treatment strategies for secondary ASD prevention.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35498212
PMCPMC9050292
OpenAlexW4224224378

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.