| Title |
Clinical and radiographic outcomes with L4–S1 axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) and posterior instrumentation: a multicenter study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s48442 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William D Tobler, Miguel A Melgar, Thomas J Raley, Neel Anand, Larry E Miller, Richard J Nasca |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have confirmed the benefits and limitations of the presacral retroperitoneal approach for L5-S1 interbody fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of the minimally invasive axial lumbar interbody approach (AxiaLIF) for L4-S1 fusion. In this retrospective series, 52 patients from four clinical sites underwent L4-S1 interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF two-level system with minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up (range: 24-51 months). Outcomes included back pain severity (on a 10-point scale), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Odom's criteria. Flexion and extension radiographs, as well as computed tomography scans, were evaluated to determine fusion status. Longitudinal outcomes were assessed with repeated measures analysis of variance. Mean subject age was 52 ± 11 years and the male:female ratio was 1:1. Patients sustained no intraoperative bowel or vascular injury, deep infection, or neurologic complication. Median procedural blood loss was 220 cc and median length of hospital stay was 3 days. At 2-year follow-up, mean back pain had improved 56%, from 7.7 ± 1.6 at baseline to 3.4 ± 2.7 (P < 0.001). Back pain clinical success (ie, ≥30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 39 (75%) patients at 2 years. Mean ODI scores improved 42%, from 60% ± 16% at baseline to 35% ± 27% at 2 years (P < 0.001). ODI clinical success (ie, ≥30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 26 (50%) patients. At final follow-up, 45 (87%) patients were rated as good or excellent, five as fair, and two as poor by Odom's criteria. Interbody fusion observed on imaging was achieved in 97 (93%) of 104 treated interspaces. During follow-up, five patients underwent reoperation on the lumbar spine, including facet screw removal (two), laminectomy (two), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (one). The AxiaLIF two-level device is a safe, effective treatment adjunct for patients with L4-S1 disc pathology resistant to conservative treatments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,077,903
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#87
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,443
of 212,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 212,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.