ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Comparison of the Medium-term Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Discectomy and Fusion with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2024. 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, 2 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) with huge herniation in the left lateral recess or central canal present challenges for oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) or endoscope-assisted OLIF procedures. Currently, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is the primary approach for this issue. This study aims to provide a standardized technical description of the anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion (ALDF) and evaluate the medium-term clinical effectiveness of both ALDF and MIS-TLIF techniques.
methodsA retrospective review was performed on LDDs who underwent ALDF and MIS-TLIF surgery from January 2018 to January 2020. The evaluation encompassed various clinical outcomes, such as the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain (VAS-back, VAS-leg), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the 36-item short-form health survey mental component summary (SF-36 MCS), and the physical component summary (SF-36 PCS). Additionally, radiological parameters, including disc height (DH), segmental disk angle (SDA), lumbar lordosis (LL), and cross-sectional area (CSA), were assessed. Data including radiculopathy, estimated blood loss, operation time, time of getting out of bed, fusion rate, and complications were recorded. Student's independent samples t test and Pearson's chi-square test were used to compare the differences between groups.
resultsIn total, 47 patients were treated by ALDF and 48 patients were treated by MIS-TLIF. The ALDF group exhibited statistically significant lower estimated blood loss and earlier time of getting out of bed compared to the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). The ALDF group demonstrated lower VAS-back scores and a higher remission rate of low back pain 3 years after the surgery (p < 0.05). During the entire follow-up period, the ALDF group exhibited higher increases in DH and SDA compared to the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). At 6 months, the fusion rate in the ALDF group was significantly higher than in the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). The comparison revealed no statistically significant differences in complication rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe ALDF could be considered as a viable surgical alternative for the treatment of LDDs that necessitate ventral neural direct decompression. ALDF exhibited favorable medium-term outcomes in patients with LDDs, displaying advantages in facilitating expedited recovery, enhancing radiographic outcomes, and elevating the remission rate of low back pain. Although ALDF presents slightly higher complication rates compared to MIS-TLIF, it does not adversely affect clinical outcomes.
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.