ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Low profile posterior lumbar-sacral interbody fusion for lumbosacral degenerative diseases: a technical note.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to report our surgical experience in patients with lumbosacral degenerative diseases who underwent posterior decompression and interbody fusion fixed with cortical bone trajectory screw and sacral alar screw, which is known as low-profile posterior lumbosacral interbody fusion (LP-PLSIF).
methodsPatients with lumbosacral degenerative disease who underwent LP-PLSIF and traditional PLSIF (control group) internally fixed with pedicle screws were included retrospectively. Patients' demographic data, operative parameters, and perioperative complications were recorded and analyzed.
resultsA total of 18 patients were enrolled in this study, which included 9 patients (5 male and 4 female) who underwent LP-PLSIF, and 9 patients (4 male and 5 female) who underwent traditional PLSIF. There wasn't a significant difference in the average age between the two groups, 56.78 ± 10.92 years in the LP-PLSIF group and 60.22 ± 8.21 years in the PLSIF group (p = 0.460). The bone mineral density (BMD) of the two groups of patients were -2.00 ± 0.26 T and -2.13 ± 0.19 T, respectively (P = 0.239). The mean postoperative follow-up time was 12.7 months (range, 12-14 months). The mean operation time was 142.78 ± 11.21 min and 156.11 ± 13.41 min in the LP-PLSIF group and PLSIF group respectively (P < 0.05). The average blood loss was 137.78 ± 37.09 ml in the LP-PLSIF group, and 150.00 ± 27.84 ml in the PLSIF group (P = 0.441). The average postoperative drainage was 85.56 ± 37.45 ml and 122.22 ± 22.24 ml in the LP-PLSIF group and control group respectively (P < 0.05). Patients in the LP-PLSIF group had shorter incision length compared with the control group, 61.44 ± 10.56 mm vs. 74.56 ± 10.22 mm (P < 0.05). The average length of hospitalization of 11.33 ± 2.92 days in the LP-PLSIF group, and 11.11 ± 1.62 days in the PLSIF group (p = 0.844). All patients had significant improvement in VAS pain score, ODI, and JOA evaluation. However, patients in the LP-PLSIF group had better improvement in terms of VAS back pain and ODI in the short term after the operation. There were no neurological complications or wound infection. The fusion rate at the last follow-up was 100% (9 of 9) in the LP-PLSIF group, and 88.89% (8 of 9) in the control group based on CT scans. 1 patient in the control group had asymptomatic sacral pedicle screw loosening.
conclusionsLP-PLSIF is a safe and effective surgical technique for patients with lumbosacral degenerative disease, which has the potential strength of less invasive and better clinical improvement.
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.