ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Severe abdominal aortic calcification is associated with poor two‑year outcomes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion in osteoporotic patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether preoperative abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) severity assessed on lateral lumbar radiographs is associated with 2year clinical and radiographic outcomes in osteoporotic patients who have undergone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, and whether it may serve as a practical, low-cost risk indicator for risk stratification.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis who underwent PLIF between January 2021 and September 2023. AAC severity was evaluated on preoperative lateral lumbar radiographs using the 24-point Kauppila scoring system, and patients were stratified into three groups: no AAC (score 0, n=40), moderate AAC (score 1-4, n=32), and severe AAC (score ≥5, n=24). Baseline characteristics, perioperative data, serial clinical scores (VAS, JOA, and ODI), and radiographic parameters were compared. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated (statistically, after adjustment for the available covariates) with 2‑year improvements in clinical outcomes.
resultsThe three groups were comparable in terms of all baseline characteristics and intraoperative variables (all P > 0.05). At the 2-year follow-up, the severe AAC group had significantly worse clinical outcomes, including higher VAS scores and lower JOA scores (both P < 0.001), while the ODI scores were similar across the groups. Radiographic analysis revealed that the severe AAC group also had a significantly lower average surgical disc height (ASDH) at 2 years (P = 0.002) and a worse distribution of interbody fusion grades (P = 0.027). Multivariate analysis confirmed that after adjustment for available covariates, severe AAC remained significantly associated with less improvement in both the VAS score (β = -1.585, P < 0.001) and the JOA score (β = 4.392, P < 0.001) at 2 years.
conclusionSevere preoperative AAC was statistically associated with poorer 2‑year pain relief, functional recovery, and fusion quality after PLIF in osteoporotic patients. Although this association should not be interpreted as causal due to the retrospective design, routine AAC assessment on lateral radiographs remains a simple, cost‑effective risk stratification tool, especially when comprehensive frailty evaluation is unavailable.
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.