ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Efficacy evaluation of a minimally invasive surgical procedure (oblique lateral interbody fusion) for lumbar spinal tuberculosis-retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In the current study, to demonstrate the advantages of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), we focused on the therapeutics for lumbar spinal tuberculosis with the comparison of three treatments, including anterior approach, posterior approach, and OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Methods: This study included patients with lumbar spinal tuberculosis from July 2015 to June 2018. We divided these patients into three groups: 35 patients underwent an anterior-only approach (Group A), 36 patients underwent a posterior-only approach (Group B), and 31 patients underwent OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (Group C). Operation time, blood loss, hospital stays, the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI), ASIA grade, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and Cobb angle were used to evaluate the surgical approaches. Results: A total of 102 patients joined this study of three therapeutic groups. The mean hospital stays, the mean operative time, and surgical blood loss of the three groups of patients were (14.40 ± 2.6, 14.00 ± 2.51, and 9.39 ± 1.86) days, (177.23 ± 13.23, 198.00 ± 16.75, and 150.39 ± 14.28) minutes, and (307.43 ± 21.91, 406.67 ± 27.02, and 105.97 ± 18.90) mL, respectively. VAS and ODI of all patients significantly improved 1 week after surgery ( Conclusion: OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation has the advantages of less surgical trauma and faster postoperative recovery, although all three surgical approaches can achieve satisfactory clinical results.
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.