The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomized Prospective Study of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: Outcomes With and Without Pedicle Screw Instrumentation
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective evaluation of the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 71 patients who underwent lumbar fusion, with or without transpedicular instrumentation. The patients completed a questionnaire that determined pain relief, medication use, return to work, and overall satisfaction with surgery. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effect, if any, of instrumentation on the outcome of lumbar fusion surgery, according to reports of the patients, and whether there is a correlation between the radiographic determination of a solid fusion and the same patient-reported outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The literature on this topic reports pseudarthrosis rates from 0% to 57% and good to excellent results from 56% to 95%. These studies provide no clear-cut recommendations concerning the effect of added lumbar instrumentation on patient-reported outcome in a prospective manner using concurrent control subjects. METHODS: The patients were randomized to groups with and without instrumentation after deciding to undergo a lumbar fusion and consenting to enter the study. Radiographs were obtained and questionnaires filled out at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in patient-reported outcome between the two groups. There was a slight nonsignificant trend toward increased radiographic fusion rate in the group with instrumentation that did not correlate with an increased patient-reported improvement rate. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not provide data that indicate a benefit in outcome from added instrumentation in elective lumbar fusions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fritzell, P., Hägg, O., Wessberg, P., & Nordwall, A. (2002) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200206010-00002 · Cited by 512
Psychosocial Aspects of Disabling Musculoskeletal Pain
Vranceanu, A.-M., Barsky, A., & Ring, D. (2009) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume · doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.01512 · Cited by 304
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Review of Current Trends and Controversies
Sengupta, D. K., & Herkowitz, H. N. (2005) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000155579.88537.8e · Cited by 269
Smoking as a Predictor of Negative Outcome in Lumbar Spinal Fusion
Andersen, T., Christensen, F. B., Laursen, M., Høy, K., Hansen, E. S., & Bünger, C. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200112010-00018 · Cited by 253
Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review
van Tulder, M. W., Koes, B., Seitsalo, S., & Malmivaara, A. (2006) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1049-5 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- France, J. C., Yaszemski, M. J., Lauerman, W. C., Cain, J. E., Glover, J. M., Lawson, K. J., Coe, J. D., & Topper, S. M.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 553-560
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2063678775
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized Prospective Study of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: Outcomes With and Without Pedicle Screw Instrumentation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199903150-00010
- The paper
- France, J. C., Yaszemski, M. J., Lauerman, W. C., Cain, J. E., Glover, J. M., Lawson, K. J., Coe, J. D., & Topper, S. M. (1999). A Randomized Prospective Study of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: Outcomes With and Without Pedicle Screw Instrumentation. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199903150-00010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.