Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Spine Surg ; 2024 Jul 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39037070

ABSTRACT

The abstract of a research paper functions to attract readers and highlight the clinical significance of a research project in a broadly appealing manner. Abstract structure is commonly dictated by the target journal, however, a basic style typically follows the "Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion" structure of introduction, materials/methods, results, and discussion/conclusion. The abstract itself is commonly the initial accessible portion of a research paper, so writing in an engaging while informative manner is imperative for increasing manuscript views and citations. Overall, an abstract is a to-the-point synopsis of a research project that succinctly describes the entirety of your work.

2.
World Neurosurg ; 187: e460-e464, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38663733

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure is a minimally invasive lumbar spine approach that provides indirect neural decompression, improved sagittal alignment, and a high fusion rate. Typically accompanied by posterior pedicle screw insertion, there has been interest in performing LLIF in a single position to decrease cost and time under anesthesia. However, there is a paucity of direct comparisons between single-position LLIF via prone versus lateral decubitus positioning. Therefore, this study aims to compare the outcomes of a single surgeon performing prone versus lateral single-position LLIF, inclusive of the L4-L5 level. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of patients who underwent either prone or lateral, single-position LLIF by a single surgeon. All cases involved the L4-L5 level. Demographic data, perioperative details, clinical outcomes, and preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis were recorded. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent lateral and 16 patients underwent prone single-position LLIF. Demographics and average interbody size were similar between groups. Operative time, change in lumbar lordosis, and length of hospital stay did not differ between the 2 positions. Both groups performed similarly in terms of preoperative and postoperative visual analog score pain score and complications. Patients who underwent lateral position LLIF ambulated farther on postoperative day 1 (250 feet vs. 200 feet, P = 0.015). Average time to follow up was 53 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates promising preliminary results indicating that single-position LLIF performs well, even at the L4-L5 level, in both the prone and lateral positions.


Subject(s)
Lumbar Vertebrae , Patient Positioning , Spinal Fusion , Humans , Spinal Fusion/methods , Female , Male , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Aged , Treatment Outcome , Patient Positioning/methods , Prone Position , Lordosis/surgery , Pedicle Screws , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL