ArticleHeliyon2024
Evaluating the efficacy and suggesting technical optimizations for endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion across different lumbar spondylolisthesis types.
Article in Heliyon, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion technique across different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis, specifically Grade I and Grade II, and suggest technical optimizations based on therapeutic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction for both grades. Methods: We analyzed data from 57 L4 to 5 spondylolisthesis patients, all categorized as either Grade I or Grade II, comprising 31 males and 26 females. Of these, 36 were diagnosed with Grade I and 21 with Grade II. All subjects underwent the endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion procedure. Primary evaluation metrics included pre and post-operative Vasual Analogue Scale（VAS） pain scores, Osewewtry Disability Index（ODI） functional scores, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, degree of spondylolisthesis correction, complications, and patient satisfaction levels. Results: At a minimum of 6 months post-operation, the VAS score for the Grade I cohort reduced from an initial 7.30 ± 0.69 to 2.97 ± 0.47, while the Grade II cohort saw a decrease from 7.53 ± 0.56 to 3.37 ± 0.62 (P = 0.0194). The ODI score in the Grade I group declined from 66.88 ± 5.15 % pre-operation to 29.88 ± 6.36 % post-operation, and in the Grade II group, it decreased from 69.33 ± 5.27 % to 34.66 ± 6.01 % (P = 0.0092). The average surgical duration for the Grade I group stood at 155.72 ± 17.75 min, compared to 180.38 ± 14.72 min for the Grade II group (P < 0.001). The mean intraoperative blood loss for the Grade I group was 144.58 ± 28.61 ml, whereas the Grade II group registered 188.23 ± 9.41 ml (P < 0.001). Post-surgery, 83 % of the Grade I patients achieved a correction degree exceeding 80 %, and 61 % of the Grade II patients surpassed 50 % (P = 0.0055). Complication rates were recorded at 8 % for Grade I and 16 % for Grade II. Patient satisfaction reached 94 % in the Grade I cohort and 90 % in the Grade II cohort. Conclusion: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion showcases promising therapeutic outcomes for both Grade I and Grade II lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, surgeries for Grade II spondylolisthesis tend to be lengthier, more challenging, involve greater blood loss, and have a heightened complication risk. Tailored technical adjustments and enhancements are essential for addressing the distinct spondylolisthesis types.
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.