Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36034361›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022

Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis.

Guang-Xun Lin, Jin-Sung Kim, Vit Kotheeranurak, Chien-Min Chen, Bao-Shan Hu, Gang Rui

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Guang-Xun LinDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Jin-Sung KimDepartment of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Vit KotheeranurakDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chien-Min ChenDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Bao-Shan HuDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Gang RuiDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to provide a direct meta-analysis of the evidence comparing outcomes between expandable cages and static cages in patients with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods: A search of relevant materials from databases was performed from inception to March 7, 2022. Clinical and radiological outcomes were included. Results: Ten studies (1,440 patients) were included. The anterior disc height and foraminal height for expandable cages were substantially higher than those for static cages at the final follow-up ( Conclusions: Expandable cages are associated with improved functional outcomes and restored postoperative disc and foraminal heights in patients with TLIF. In addition, no statistically significant differences were observed in segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic parameters, cage subsidence, or fusion rate.

Indexed as

expandable cagemeta-analysisstatic cageTLIFtransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID36034361
PMCPMC9400024

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.