ReviewGlobal spine journal2024
Lumbar Total Disc Replacements for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review of Outcomes With a Minimum of 5 years Follow-Up.
Review in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary expert consensus on clinical diagnosis and therapies for low back pain.Bone research · 2026Article
- Integrating Structures and Biology: Cellular and Molecular Interactions with Functionally Graded Spinal Cage Designs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Long-term outcomes of total lumbar disc prosthesis: Sustained pain relief.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Optimized Versus Conventional Perioperative Care in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- A Proposed Diagnostic and Treatment Algorithm for the Management of Lumbar Discogenic Pain.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic Review.
objectivesTo systematically review the clinical outcomes, re-operation, and complication rates of lumbar TDR devices at mid-to long-term follow-up studies for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).
methodsA systematic search was conducted on PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar to identify follow-up studies that evaluated clinical outcomes of lumbar TDR in patients with DDD. The included studies met the following criteria: prospective or retrospective studies published from 2012 to 2022; a minimum of 5 years post-operative follow-up; a study sample size >10 patients; patients >18 years of age; containing clinical outcomes with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), complication or reoperation rates.
resultsTwenty-two studies were included with data on 2284 patients. The mean follow-up time was 8.30 years, with a mean follow-up rate of 86.91%. The study population was 54.97% female, with a mean age of 42.34 years. The mean VAS and ODI pain score improvements were 50.71 ± 6.91 and 30.39 ± 5.32 respectively. The mean clinical success and patient satisfaction rates were 74.79% ± 7.55% and 86.34% ± 5.64%, respectively. The mean complication and reoperation rates were 18.53% ± 6.33% and 13.6% ± 3.83%, respectively. There was no significant difference when comparing mid-term and long-term follow-up studies for all clinical outcomes.
conclusionsThere were significant improvements in pain reduction at last follow-up in patients with TDRs. Mid-term follow-up data on clinical outcomes, complication and reoperation rates of lumbar TDRs were maintained longer term.
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.