| Title |
Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aixing Pan, Yong Hai, Jincai Yang, Lijin Zhou, Xiaolong Chen, Hui Guo |
| Abstract |
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of motion-preservation procedures to prevent the adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) or adjacent segment disease (ASDis) compared with fusion in lumbar spine. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched and a meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials and well designed prospective or retrospective comparative cohort studies assessing the lumbar fusion and motion-preservation procedures. We compared the ASDeg and ASDis rate, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) and oswestry disability index (ODI) improvement of the two procedures. A total of 15 studies consisting of 1474 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis indicated that the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and reoperation rate on the adjacent level were lower in motion-preservation procedures group than in the fusion group (P = 0.001; P = 0.0004; P < 0.0001). Moreover, shorter length of hospital stay was found in motion-preservation procedures group (P < 0.0001). No difference was found in terms of operation time (P = 0.57), blood loss (P = 0.27), VAS (P = 0.76) and ODI improvement (P = 0.71) between the two groups. The present evidences indicated that the motion-preservation procedures had an advantage on reducing the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and the reoperation rate due to the adjacent segment degeneration compared with the lumbar fusion. And the clinical outcomes of the two procedures are similar. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 36% |
| Engineering | 8 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,006,161
of 23,946,786 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#174
of 4,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,023
of 303,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#9
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,946,786 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,937 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.