ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Clinical Analysis and Imaging Study of Lateral Lumbar Intervertebral Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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
Abstract
objectiveAs the population ages and technology advances, lateral lumbar intervertebral fusion (LLIF) is gaining popularity for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). This study investigated the feasibility, minimally invasive concept, and benefits of LLIF for the treatment of DLS by observing and assessing the clinical efficacy, imaging changes, and complications following the procedure.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed for 52 DLS patients (12 men and 40 women, aged 65.84 ± 9.873 years) who underwent LLIF from January 2019 to January 2023. The operation time, blood loss, complications, clinical efficacy indicators (visual analogue scale [VAS], Oswestry disability index [ODI], and 36-Item Short Form Survey), and imaging indicators (coronal position: Cobb angle and center sacral vertical line-C7 plumbline [CSVL-C7PL]; and sagittal position: sagittal vertical axis [SVA], lumbar lordosis [LL], pelvic incidence angle [PI], and thoracic kyphosis angle [TK] were measured). All patients were followed up. The above clinical evaluation indexes and imaging outcomes of patients postoperatively and at last follow-up were compared to their preoperative results.
resultsCompared to the preoperative values, the Cobb angle and LL angle were significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, CSVL-C7PL, SVA, and TK did not change much after surgery (p > 0.05) but improved significantly at follow-up (p < 0.001). There was no significant change in PI at either the postoperative or follow-up timepoint. The operation took 283.90 ± 81.62 min and resulted in a total blood loss of 257.27 ± 213.44 mL. No significant complications occurred. Patients were followed up for to 21.7 ± 9.8 months. VAS, ODI, and SF-36 scores improved considerably at postoperative and final follow-up compared to preoperative levels (p < 0.001). After surgery, the Cobb angle and LL angle had improved significantly compared to preoperative values (p < 0.001). CSVL-C7PL, SVA, and TK were stable after surgery (p > 0.05) but considerably improved during follow-up (p < 0.001). PI showed no significant change at either the postoperative or follow-up timepoints.
conclusionLateral lumbar intervertebral fusion treatment of DLS significantly improved sagittal and coronal balance of the lumbar spine, as well as compensatory thoracic scoliosis, with good clinical and radiological findings. Furthermore, there was less blood, less trauma, and quicker recovery from surgery.
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.