ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2024
Assessment of factors implicated in bone fusion after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar intervertebral fusion.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 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
Objective: Lumbar spinal fusion is a common procedure for treating spinal degenerative diseases. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) is a minimally invasive technique that has gained popularity. However, the factors influencing fusion success rates after PELIF have not been well-studied. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 96 patients who underwent single-level PELIF for degenerative pathologies between 2018 and 2020. Fusion was evaluated using thin-slice computed tomography scans at 12 months by 2 independent radiologists and defined as no detectable lucency between bone and graft. Patients were categorized into fusion and non-fusion groups. Data on age, operative time, blood loss, drainage, hospital stay, surgical level, osteoporosis, endplateitis, body mass index, lumbar curvature, and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) use were collected. Univariate tests (chi-square, Student’s t-test, and analysis of variance) were employed to compare factors between groups. Significant factors were included in a multivariate logistic regression model with fusion as the dependent variable. Results: The overall fusion success rate was 85.6% (86 fusion and 10 non-fusion). Univariate analysis revealed significant di!erences in age, osteoporosis, hypertension, diabetes, endplateitis, and BMP use between groups. Multivariate analysis identified osteoporosis (odds ratio (OR)=5.44, 95% CI, P < .05) and end-plate osteochondritis (OR=10.449, 95% CI, P < .05) as independent risk factors for non-fusion. Conclusion: The use of BMP and endplateitis are significant factors that a!ect bone fusion outcomes after the PELIF procedure. These factors should be taken into account in order to improve postoperative bone fusion. Level of Evidence: Level IV, Therapeutic Study
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.