Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41710122›Full record

ReviewCurrent orthopaedic practice

Preserving spinal motion: lumbar disc arthroplasty in the US.

Lindsay D Orosz, Yusuf A Rafiqzad, Tamer R Hage, Rita T Roy, Colin M Haines

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current orthopaedic practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Lindsay D OroszResearch Department, National Spine Health Foundation, Reston, VA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7189-7746
Yusuf A RafiqzadResearch Department, National Spine Health Foundation, Reston, VA.
Tamer R HageResearch Department, National Spine Health Foundation, Reston, VA.
Rita T RoyResearch Department, National Spine Health Foundation, Reston, VA.
Colin M HainesDepartment of Surgery, Virginia Spine Institute, Reston, VA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease affects millions of patients, is a leading cause of physician visits annually, and significantly impacts healthcare systems globally. The gold standard treatment for this condition is spinal fusion, but its mechanism of eliminating segmental motion and risk of adjacent segment disease resulting in additional surgery has increased interest in alternative treatments. Lumbar disc arthroplasty has emerged as an alternative to fusion due to its comparable patient outcomes coupled with the ability to preserve spinal motion resulting in greater long-term benefit potential. Yet, widespread adoption of the procedure has been dampened by low reimbursement rates and disproportionate insurance denials compared to lumbar fusions, affecting patient access to this technology. Artificial disc procedures have been performed in Europe since the mid-1980's with favorable results, leaving the United States comparatively behind. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current literature regarding lumbar disc arthroplasty as it pertains to implants available in the United States.

Indexed as

degenerative disc diseasehybrid surgerylumbar arthroplastylumbar artificial discmotion preservation

Identifiers

PMID41710122
PMCPMC12911488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.