Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36253081›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2023

The Effect of Amniotic Tissue on Spinal Interventions: A Systematic Review.

M Lane Moore, David G Deckey, Jordan R Pollock, John-Rudolph H Smith, John M Tokish, Matthew T Neal

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2023. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  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 3 institutions in 1 country.

M Lane MooreMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
David G DeckeyDepartment of Orthopaedics, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA deckey.david@mayo.edu.
Jordan R PollockMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
John-Rudolph H SmithMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
John M TokishDepartment of Orthopaedics, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Matthew T NealDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Mayo Clinic Hospital · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmniotic membrane tissue has been thought to potentiate healing in many soft tissue conditions. Specifically, recent studies have shown its therapeutic potential for treatment in the setting of spinal pathologies. The purpose of this study is to thoroughly review the existing scientific literature and evidence concerning the clinical use of amniotic membrane-derived biologic agents on postoperative outcomes following spinal surgery.

methodsA systematic review was conducted following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to December 2020 to identify animal and clinical studies examining the therapeutic potential for amniotic membrane tissue in the setting of spinal pathologies (including disc herniation, prevention of epidural fibrosis, and spinal fusion). Studies were broken down into 2 categories: experimental model type and the type of amnion product being analyzed.

resultsA total of 12 studies (4 clinical studies and 8 studies utilizing animal models) met inclusion criteria. Additionally, the major types of amnion product were divided into cryopreserved/freeze-dried amniotic membrane, human amniotic fluid, human amniotic membrane, cross-linked amniotic membrane, and amnion-derived epithelial cells. While heterogeneity of study design precludes definitive specific results reporting, most studies showed positive benefits on healing/outcomes with amniotic augmentation. Specifically, amnion products have shown promising effects in reducing epidural adhesions and scar tissue after spine surgery, improving spinal fusion rate and postoperative pain scores, and promoting better functional outcomes after spine surgery.

conclusionsA review of the limited number of reported studies revealed a wide variety of amniotic membrane preparations, treatment regimens, and indications, which limit definitive conclusions. To date, while there is no definitive clinical proof that amniotic tissues enhance tissue repair or regeneration, the aggregate results demonstrate promising basic science and outcomes potential in spinal surgery. Further study is warranted to determine whether this application is appropriate in the clinical setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This systematic review provides a summary of the existing literature regarding the use of amniotic membrane preparations, treatment regimens, and indications within spinal surgery. With the growing popularity and utilization of biologic agents such as amniotic membrane-derived products in orthopedic and neurologic surgery, this systematic review gives physicians a concise summary on the outcomes and indications associated with amniotic membrane products. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:

Indexed as

amniotic membranechorionic membranedisc herniationepidural fibrosisepidural injectionintervertebral discmicrodiscectomyspinal dysraphismumbilical cord

Identifiers

PMID36253081
PMCPMC10025852
OpenAlexW4306631491

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.