ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2024
Retrospective analysis of medium-term outcomes following anterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery performed in a tertiary spinal surgical centre.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can treat spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease and pseudoarthrosis. This approach facilitates complete discectomy, disc space distraction, indirect decompression of neural foramina and placement of large interbody devices. Several intra- and postoperative complications can be attributed to the anterior approach: vascular/visceral injury, hypogastric plexus injury and urogenital consequences. Spine-specific complications include implant migration, graft failure, pseudoarthrosis and persistent symptomology.
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed patient demographics, medium-term outcomes and complication rates following ALIF surgery performed over a 5-year period. A total of 110 consecutive patients had undergone ALIF surgery at a single tertiary spinal centre. The database was reviewed with a primary outcome of identifying postoperative 90-day complications and whether a revision anterior operation was required after primary ALIF.
resultsNo patients required revision anterior operation after their primary ALIF surgery by final follow-up. Out of 110 patients, 11 (10%) recorded a complication attributed to the anterior stage of their operation within 90 days.
conclusionsOur 90-day complication rate of 10% lies within the 2.6% acute complication and 40% overall complications rates described in previous literature. The risk of vascular/visceral injury is significant (3%) and we recommend that ALIF be performed as a dual surgeon procedure with a vascular-trained access surgeon accompanying the spinal surgeon. ALIF is a valid revision surgical option for failed posterior approaches leading to complications such as pseudoarthrosis. In our sample, 89% of patients were managed with posterior fixation to augment the anterior fusion as, biomechanically, this is a proven construct.
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.