SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Posterior Fixation and Fusion (PFF) versus Combined Anterior and Posterior Fixation and Fusion (CAPFF) for type B and C thoracolumbar spine injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correction: Posterior Fixation and Fusion (PFF) versus Combined Anterior and Posterior Fixation and Fusion (CAPFF) for type B and C thoracolumbar spine injuries: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Complication rates in thoracolumbar fracture-dislocations with and without neurological injury.Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2026Article
- Motion Intention Prediction for Lumbar Exoskeletons Based on Attention-Enhanced sEMG Inference.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA literature review and meta-analysis were conducted on studies comparing posterior fixation and fusion (PFF) and combined anterior and posterior fixation and fusion (CAPFF) for type B and C thoracolumbar injuries to determine the superior technique.
methodsA search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register was conducted from inception to September 2023. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing PFF and CAPFF for B and C thoracolumbar injuries in adults were included. Excluded were reviews, non-English studies, studies involving children, pregnant women, other spinal pathologies, or different surgical treatments. Out of 5,773 articles, 8 were included for data extraction, and the recorded metrics included blood loss, operative time, cost, length of stay, follow-up, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, kyphosis angle, and patient age.
resultsAcross the included studies, 343 patients (228 = posterior approach, 115 = combined anterior posterior approach) were included, with follow-up ranging from 27-117.7 months. The surgical approach was randomly chosen in 2 of the 8 studies. Compared with the CAPFF approach, the PFF approach resulted in significantly less blood loss (Cohen's d = -1.70, p = 0.00) and cost (Cohen's d = -6.60, p = 0.01). PFF and CAPFF had similar postoperative lengths of stay; VAS-pain scores; pre, post, and final kyphosis angles; and patient age.
conclusionsThis study identifies some key differences between PFF and CAPFF for the treatment of B and C thoracolumbar injuries, including lower cost and blood loss for PFF, and no difference in pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS), kyphosis angle, patient age, or postoperative length of stay. However, a lack of consistent metrics across studies underscores the need for additional research in this area. The selected data indicate that there may be benefits of PFF for patients compared with CAPFF, yet additional research is necessary to more definitively suggest a superior approach.
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.