ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024
Comparison of capsule and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in cauda equina syndrome with retention: a 24-month follow-up study.
Article in European journal of medical research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCauda equina syndrome with retention (CESR) is a severe lumbar condition characterized by painless urine retention due to cauda equina nerve injury. The standard treatment, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), often yields suboptimal results. This study aims to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of a novel technique, capsule lumbar interbody fusion (CLIF), with PLIF in CESR patients, hypothesizing that CLIF can enhance neurological recovery by reducing nerve tension.
methodsA single-center, retrospective study was conducted on 83 patients with CESR due to lumbar disc herniation, who underwent either PLIF (n = 44) or CLIF (n = 39). Patients were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICI-Q-SF), and Rintala score. Urodynamic studies and nerve tension measurements were also performed. Statistical analysis included t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Spearman's correlation.
resultsBoth groups showed significant postoperative improvements, but the CLIF group had superior outcomes. At 12 months, the CLIF group had lower VAS scores (1.15 ± 0.84 vs. 1.68 ± 0.60, p = 0.001) and ODI scores (23.31 ± 7.51 vs. 28.30 ± 8.26, p = 0.005). At 24 months, the CLIF group continued to show better results with ODI scores (15.97 ± 6.43 vs. 22.11 ± 6.41, p < 0.001) and higher ODI recovery rates (60.41 ± 17.6% vs. 44.71 ± 18.99%, p < 0.001). The CLIF group also had better ICI-Q-SF scores (2.13 ± 1.23 vs. 3.02 ± 1.45, p = 0.004) and Rintala scores (17.97 ± 1.43 vs. 16.59 ± 1.54, p < 0.001). Lower postoperative nerve tension in the CLIF group correlated with these improved outcomes.
conclusionsCLIF demonstrated superior efficacy over PLIF in treating CESR, with significant improvements in pain relief, functional recovery, and bladder and bowel function. This study highlights the potential of CLIF as a more effective surgical option for CESR, emphasizing its importance in improving patient outcomes and reducing the burden of CESR on patients and society.
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.