World neurosurgery · 2023
Characterizing and Improving Nomenclature for Reporting Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turlip Ryan, Ahmad Hasan S, Ghenbot Yohannes G, Wathen Connor, Chauhan Daksh, McCloskey Kyle, Yoon Jang W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques have seen impressive innovation in recent years, leading to an expansion of the LIF lexicon. This study systematically analyzes LIF nomenclature in contemporary literature and proposes a standardized classification system for reporting LIF terminology.
METHODS: A search query was conducted through the PubMed database using "lumbar fusion OR lumbar interbody fusion." A total of 1455 articles were identified, and 605 references to LIF were recorded. Following a systematic review of the terminology, we developed a LIF reporting guidelines that capture the existing LIF nomenclature while avoiding redundant or ambiguous terminology.
RESULTS: The most referenced anatomical approaches were transforaminal (43.0%), followed by posterior (25.0%), lateral (19.7%), and anterior (10.9%). Overall, there were 72 unique ways to describe LIF. Unique prefixes were recorded by approach (posterior: 26; lateral: 13; anterior: 3). Forty unique prefixes/suffixes overlapped in their usage. "MI" (14.4%), "MIS" (38.1%), and "MISS" (0.6%) all referenced a minimally invasive approach. "O" (12.5%), "CO" (1.3%), and "TO" (1.3%) all described open techniques. "Endo" (0.6%), "Endoscopic-assisted" (1.3%), and "PE" (1.9%) all referenced endoscopic-assisted procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: The current LIF nomenclature contains many unique LIF terms that were found to be inconsistently defined, redundant, or ambiguous. We propose the standardization of a 4-part naming system which highlights the crucial parts of LIF: (1) intraoperative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) anatomical approach, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscles.
METHODS: A search query was conducted through the PubMed database using "lumbar fusion OR lumbar interbody fusion." A total of 1455 articles were identified, and 605 references to LIF were recorded. Following a systematic review of the terminology, we developed a LIF reporting guidelines that capture the existing LIF nomenclature while avoiding redundant or ambiguous terminology.
RESULTS: The most referenced anatomical approaches were transforaminal (43.0%), followed by posterior (25.0%), lateral (19.7%), and anterior (10.9%). Overall, there were 72 unique ways to describe LIF. Unique prefixes were recorded by approach (posterior: 26; lateral: 13; anterior: 3). Forty unique prefixes/suffixes overlapped in their usage. "MI" (14.4%), "MIS" (38.1%), and "MISS" (0.6%) all referenced a minimally invasive approach. "O" (12.5%), "CO" (1.3%), and "TO" (1.3%) all described open techniques. "Endo" (0.6%), "Endoscopic-assisted" (1.3%), and "PE" (1.9%) all referenced endoscopic-assisted procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: The current LIF nomenclature contains many unique LIF terms that were found to be inconsistently defined, redundant, or ambiguous. We propose the standardization of a 4-part naming system which highlights the crucial parts of LIF: (1) intraoperative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) anatomical approach, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscles.