Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18493802›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2008

The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression.

Tobias L Schulte, Christof Hurschler, Marcel Haversath, Ulf Liljenqvist, Viola Bullmann, Timm J Filler, Nani Osada, Eva-Maria Fallenberg, Lars Hackenberg

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Surgical tips for the implantation of BDYNActa neurochirurgica · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Circumferential dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: a biomechanical analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2014
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The effect of design parameters of interspinous implants on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2014
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tobias L SchulteDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Strasse 33, 48149, Münster, Germany. dr.tobias.schulte@web.de
Christof Hurschler
Marcel Haversath
Ulf Liljenqvist
Viola Bullmann
Timm J Filler
Nani Osada
Eva-Maria Fallenberg
Lars Hackenberg
University Hospital Münster · DEUniversity of Münster · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Undercutting decompression is a common surgical procedure for the therapy of lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Segmental instability, due to segmental degeneration or iatrogenic decompression is a typical problem that is clinically addressed by fusion, or more recently by semi-rigid stabilization devices. The objective of this experimental biomechanical study was to investigate the influence of spinal decompression alone, as well as in conjunction with two semi-rigid stabilizing implants (Wallis, Dynesys) on the range of motion (ROM) of lumbar spine segments. A total of 21 fresh-frozen human lumbar spine motion segments were obtained. Range of motion and neutral zone (NZ) were measured in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LAT) and axial rotation (ROT) for each motion segment under four conditions: (1) with all stabilizing structures intact (PHY), (2) after bilateral undercutting decompression (UDC), (3) after additional implantation of Wallis (UDC-W) and (4) after removal of Wallis and subsequent implantation of Dynesys (UDC-D). Measurements were performed using a sensor-guided industrial robot in a pure-moment-loading mode. Range of motion was defined as the angle covered between loadings of -5 and +5 Nm during the last of three applied motion cycles. Untreated physiologic segments showed the following mean ROM: FE 6.6 degrees , LAT 7.4 degrees , ROT 3.9 degrees . After decompression, a significant increase of ROM was observed: 26% FE, 6% LAT, 12% ROT. After additional implantation of a semi-rigid device, a decrease in ROM compared to the situation after decompression alone was observed with a reduction of 66 and 75% in FE, 6 and 70% in LAT, and 5 and 22% in ROT being observed for the Wallis and Dynesys, respectively. When the flexion and extension contribution to ROM was separated, the Wallis implant restricted extension by 69% and flexion by 62%, the Dynesys by 73 and 75%, respectively. Compared to the intact status, instrumentation following decompression led to a ROM reduction of 58 and 68% in FE, 1 and 68% in LAT, -6 and 13% in ROT, 61 and 65% in extension and 54 and 70% in flexion for Wallis and Dynesys. The effect of the implants on NZ corresponded to that on ROM. In conclusion, implantation of the Wallis and Dynesys devices following decompression leads to a restriction of ROM in all motion planes investigated. Flexion-extension is most affected by both implants. The Dynesys implant leads to an additional strong restriction in lateral bending. Rotation is only mildly affected by both implants. Wallis and Dynesys restrict not only isolated extension, but also flexion. These biomechanical results support the hypothesis that postoperatively, the semi-rigid implants provide a primary stabilizing function directly. Whether they can improve the clinical outcome must still be verified in prospective clinical investigations.

Indexed as

Internal FixatorsMaterials TestingRange of Motion, ArticularAgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleOrthopedic ProceduresSpinal Diseases

Identifiers

PMID18493802
PMCPMC2518758
OpenAlexW1984733182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.