ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Surgical outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in revision lumbar interbody fusion surgery.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Successful execution of preoperative lumbar alignment planning: reliability of the L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsAnterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an attractive option for revision lumbar interbody fusion as it provides wide access for implant removal and accommodation of large interbody grafts for fusion. However, revision lumbar interbody fusion surgery has not been found to result in significantly better functional outcomes compared with other approaches. To date, no prognostic factors of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in revision lumbar interbody fusion have been reported. In this study, we investigated the surgical results and possible prognostic factors of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in revision lumbar interbody fusion.
methodsPatients who received revision interbody fusion surgery between January 2010 and May 2018 in our hospital were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were determined according to whether the VAS score improvement in back pain and leg pain reached the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and Macnab criteria. Radiographic outcomes were assessed with fusion rate, preoperative, and postoperative lumbar lordosis. Operative-relative factors that may affect clinical outcomes, such as BMI, existence of cage migration, cage subsidence, pseudarthrosis, previous procedure, and number of fusion segments, were collected and analyzed.
resultsA total of 22 consecutive patients who received ALIF for revision interbody fusion surgery were included and analyzed. There were 9 men and 13 women with a mean age at operation of 56 years (26-78). The mean follow-up was 73 months (20-121). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reached in 11 (50%) of the patients for back pain and 14 (64%) for leg pain. According to the modified Macnab criteria, 73% of the patients in this study had successful outcomes (excellent or good). The pain and lumbar lordosis had significant improvement (P < 0.05). Preoperative fusion segment ≥ 2 was shown to be a poor prognostic factor for back pain improvement reaching MCID (P = 0.043).
conclusionsALIF has proven effective for revision lumbar fusion surgery, yielding positive clinical and radiographic results. However, having two or more preoperative fusion segments can negatively impact back pain improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.