Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41120216›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025

Total Joint Replacement of the Lumbar Spine: 12-Month Pain and Functional Outcomes From an Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Trial.

Pierce D Nunley, J Alex Sielatycki, S Craig Humphreys, Scott D Hodges, Jon E Block, Domagoj Coric, Jeffrey A Goldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Beyond the two-year trial: real-World failure mechanisms of the simplify cervical disc.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pierce D NunleySpine Institute of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, USA.
J Alex SielatyckiSteamboat Orthopedic and Spine Institute, Steamboat Springs, CO, USA.
S Craig HumphreysKenai Spine, Soldotna, AK, USA.
Scott D Hodges3Spine, Chattanooga, TN, USA.
Jon E BlockIndependent Consultant, San Francisco, CA, USA jb@drjonblock.com.
Domagoj CoricCarolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Jeffrey A GoldsteinDepartments of Orthopedic Surgery and Neurosurgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar fusion eliminates motion at the operative level and is associated with altered load transfer and adjacent segment degeneration. Total joint replacement (TJR) of the lumbar spine is a motion segment reconstruction procedure performed via a bilateral transforaminal approach that allows direct neural decompression and replacement of both disc and facet function. This prospective investigational device exemption clinical trial compared TJR with a concurrent, propensity-score-weighted real-world evidence cohort treated with either instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody spine fusion (PLIF).

methodsThis multicenter investigational device exemption trial was conducted at 20 US sites. Patient-reported outcomes from 152 TJR subjects implanted with the MOTUS device were compared with 142 propensity score-weighted TLIF/PLIF controls. Lumbar-related disability was measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and back and worst leg pain severity by a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Minimal clinically important difference thresholds were ODI ≥ 15 points and VAS ≥ 20 mm; responder analyses were also conducted using ≥30% and substantial clinical benefit (≥50%) thresholds. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's

resultsBaseline characteristics were well balanced, and there were no statistically significant differences between study groups. At 12 months, mean ODI decreased by 45 points (71%) with TJR and 37 points (59%) with TLIF/PLIF. The adjusted between-group difference was 8.1 points (95% CI, 2.5-13.7;

conclusionsSubstantial decreases in back impairment and pain severity were realized in both study groups. However, longitudinal improvement in ODI significantly favored patients treated with TJR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lumbar TJR combines decompression with motion preservation in a single procedure, potentially offering an alternative to fusion in selected patients. The advantage of utilizing a standard posterior operative approach with TJR is that it allows for direct decompression of the neural elements prior to implant placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Indexed as

degenerationjoint replacementlumbarMOTUSspinal stenosis

Identifiers

PMID41120216
PMCPMC12862206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.