ArticleSpine deformity2024
What factors are associated with a better restoration of pelvic version after adult spinal deformity surgery?
Article in Spine deformity, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPoor restoration of pelvic version after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is associated with an increased risk of mechanical complications and worse quality of life. We studied the factors linked to the improvement of postoperative pelvic version. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter ASD database. Selection criteria were: operated patients having preoperative severe pelvic retroversion as per GAP score (Relative Pelvic Version-RPV < - 15°); panlumbar fusions to the pelvis; 2-year follow-up. Group A comprised patients with any postoperative improvement of RPV score, and group B had no improvement. Groups were compared regarding baseline characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative sagittal parameters. Parametric and non-parametric analyses were employed.
results177 patients were studied, median age 67 years (61; 72.5), 83.6% female. Groups were homogeneous in baseline demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative sagittal parameters (p > 0.05). The difference in RPV improvement was 11.56º. Group A (137 patients) underwent a higher percentage of ALIF procedures (OR = 6.66; p = 0.049), and posterior osteotomies (OR = 4.96; p < 0.001) especially tricolumnar (OR = 2.31; p = 0.041). It also showed a lower percentage of TLIF procedures (OR = 0.45; p = 0.028), and posterior decompression (OR = 0.44; p = 0.024). Group A displayed better postoperative L4-S1 angle and relative lumbar lordosis (RLL), leading to improved sacral slope (and RPV), and global alignment (RSA). Group A patients had longer instrumentations (11.45 vs 10; p = 0.047) and hospitalization time (13 vs 11; p = 0.045). All postoperative sagittal parameters remained significantly better in group A through follow-up. However, differences between the groups narrowed over time.
conclusionsALIF procedures and posterior column osteotomies improved pelvic version postoperatively, and associated better L4-S1 and lumbar lordosis restoration, indirectly improving all other sagittal parameters. However, these improvements seemed to fade during the 2-year follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38589595What 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.