SPINE Volume 40, Number 7, pp E418 ©2015, Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
CLINICAL CASE SERIES
Point of View Michael R. Zindrick, MD
T
he authors present a 1- to 3-year retrospective review of 30 of 32 patients who underwent implantation with active -L TDR; the first such report in a Chinese population. Despite the multiple limitations of this study, the results are encouraging in both patient-reported metrics and radiographical analysis. The reader must take into consideration the numerous limitations of this study that prevent drawing firm conclusions from the data presented. It is a retrospective review of a limited number of patients, many of whom were followed for less than 2 years. In 11 of 30 patients, there was less than 24 months of follow-up and in 15 of 30 patients, there was less than 35 months of follow-up. In only 15 of 30 patients was there follow-up of 35 months or greater. (Table 2). It
appears that several of the author’s conclusions are based on all patients at the end of the study 3-year data collection period, which is different from total numbers of patients followed for 3 years. The interested reader cannot determine from the data at which follow-up point many of the conclusions were drawn because of the combined nature in which the follow-up data is presented. Although motion changes postoperatively were not seen in the level below the implant, they were seen in the level above. Does this signal trouble ahead in these patients? Only longer follow-up will answer this question. The authors are encouraged to continue to follow these patients for a much longer period of time if they wish to make a significant contribution.
From Hinsdale Orthopaedics Associates, Hinsdale, IL and Loyola University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Maywood, IL. Acknowledgment date: February 4, 2015. Acceptance date: February 10, 2015. The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). No funds were received in support of this work. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work: board membership, royalties. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Michael R. Zindrick, MD, Hinsdale Orthopaedic Associates, 550 North Monroe Ave, Hinsdale, IL 60521; E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000835
E418
www.spinejournal.com
April 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. SPINE141019POV_LR E418
09/03/15 9:39 AM
CLINICAL CASE SERIES
Point of View Michael R. Zindrick, MD
T
he authors present a 1- to 3-year retrospective review of 30 of 32 patients who underwent implantation with active -L TDR; the first such report in a Chinese population. Despite the multiple limitations of this study, the results are encouraging in both patient-reported metrics and radiographical analysis. The reader must take into consideration the numerous limitations of this study that prevent drawing firm conclusions from the data presented. It is a retrospective review of a limited number of patients, many of whom were followed for less than 2 years. In 11 of 30 patients, there was less than 24 months of follow-up and in 15 of 30 patients, there was less than 35 months of follow-up. In only 15 of 30 patients was there follow-up of 35 months or greater. (Table 2). It
appears that several of the author’s conclusions are based on all patients at the end of the study 3-year data collection period, which is different from total numbers of patients followed for 3 years. The interested reader cannot determine from the data at which follow-up point many of the conclusions were drawn because of the combined nature in which the follow-up data is presented. Although motion changes postoperatively were not seen in the level below the implant, they were seen in the level above. Does this signal trouble ahead in these patients? Only longer follow-up will answer this question. The authors are encouraged to continue to follow these patients for a much longer period of time if they wish to make a significant contribution.
From Hinsdale Orthopaedics Associates, Hinsdale, IL and Loyola University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Maywood, IL. Acknowledgment date: February 4, 2015. Acceptance date: February 10, 2015. The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). No funds were received in support of this work. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work: board membership, royalties. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Michael R. Zindrick, MD, Hinsdale Orthopaedic Associates, 550 North Monroe Ave, Hinsdale, IL 60521; E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000835
E418
www.spinejournal.com
April 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. SPINE141019POV_LR E418
09/03/15 9:39 AM
