Observational studyNeurosurgical review2025
Reoperations for cage removal or replacement in patients undergoing ALIF: operative morbidity and surgical strategy.
Observational study in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Management Strategies for Cage Retropulsion Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextAnterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) is used for degenerative spinal conditions, but reoperations are sometimes needed. Same-approach reoperation is challenging due to scarring and vascular proximity; literature on this is scarce.
objectiveTo evaluate morbidity and clinical outcomes of same-approach ALIF reoperations by a specialized team. STUDY
designRetrospective observational study.
methodsData from a prospectively maintained database (Instituto de Acesso à Coluna Aécio Dias) were analyzed for patients undergoing same-approach ALIF reoperation (cage exchange/removal) between April 2019 and June 2024 (n = 16). INCLUSION CRITERIA: age > 18, prior ALIF, reoperation due to complications. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: different approach, outside study period. OUTCOMES: intraoperative morbidity (vascular, organ, nerve injuries), postoperative morbidity (infections, VAS Scale, etc.), surgical strategies. Descriptive and inferential statistics (paired t-test, p < 0.05) were used (Python).
resultsMean age: 54.37 years (SD = 9.52); 62.5% male. Main reoperation indication: cage migration (43.75%). Mean interval between surgeries: 17.06 weeks (SD = 15.97). Three vascular injuries (1 arterial, 2 venous) occurred (18.75%). Two postoperative complications (retroperitoneal infection, lymphocele) were noted (12.5%). Mean operative time: 142.50 min (SD = 56.50); mean blood loss: 114.06 ml (SD = 64.52). Most reoperations were at L5-S1 (75%).
conclusionsSame-approach ALIF reoperation appears safe with an experienced team. Higher lumbar level reoperations carry greater morbidity, warranting consideration of conservative management. Reoperation may be linked to initial procedural failures or patient selection. Risks are amplified compared to primary ALIF due to scar tissue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40493101What 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.