ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025
24-month patient-reported outcomes for a novel lumbar total joint replacement.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Interventional, multicentre investigation of a novel lumbar total joint replacement: propensity matched study design and protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Total joint replacement of the lumbar spine: surgical technique and procedural details.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Total Joint Replacement of the Lumbar Spine: 12-Month Pain and Functional Outcomes From an Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Trial.International journal of spine 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar fusion remains a prevalent treatment for degenerative conditions; however, its limitations have sparked interest in alternative motion-sparing procedures. Our study evaluates 24-month postoperative patient-reported outcomes from an OUS pilot clinical study on a novel lumbar total joint replacement (TJR) for degenerative conditions. Methods: Data was collected from 63 patients, of which 56 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Self-reported measures collected for this study are Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Minimal Symptom State (MSS), Minimal Clinical Important Difference (MCID), Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB). This retrospective analysis of prospective, IRB-approved collected data reports 24 month patient-reported outcomes on a cohort receiving lumbar TJR. The cohort includes skeletally mature individuals who underwent lumbar TJR at 1-3 Lumbar levels (L1-S1) between 2008 and 2019. Conservative treatment was mandatory for at least 3 months unless facing a neurologic emergency or intractable pain. Descriptive analysis was performed for continuous variables and frequencies were calculated for categorical variables. Results: 63 patients were treated with lumbar TJR and electively participated in data collection after 12 months. 56 patients, with age ranging from 19 to 82 years, and 93 levels were treated with lumbar TJR at 1-3 lumbar levels and had complete follow-up data at 12 and 24 m. No device-related adverse events were reported during the 12-to-24-month follow-up window. At 24 months, patients exhibited sustained clinical improvement in back pain, leg pain, and disability scores, similar to the 12-month observations. An overall improvement in Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was also noted. Conclusions: Our study shows consistent improvement in PROs, indicating the clinical improvement of lumbar TJR at both the 12-month and 24-month follow-up points, compared to baseline. Acknowledging limitations, including the lack of comparative data with standard of care, these findings suggest that TJR may be a treatment option for indicated lumbar degenerative pathologies.
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.