Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19330364›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 Society2009

Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: potential impact of dynamic stabilization based on imaging analysis.

Thomas W Lawhorne, Federico P Girardi, Curtis A Mina, Iaonnis Pappou, Frank P Cammisa

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, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas W LawhorneSpine Service, Rush University Medical Center, 1653 W. Congress Parkway, Chicago, IL, USA.
Federico P Girardi
Curtis A Mina
Iaonnis Pappou
Frank P Cammisa
Cornell University · USHospital for Special Surgery · USRush University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intraspinous and pedicle screw-based (PSB) dynamic instrumentation systems have been in use for a decade now. By direct or indirect decompression, these devices theoretically establish less painful segmental motion by diminishing pathologic motion and unloading painful disks. Ideally, dynamics should address instability in the early stages of degenerative spondylolisthesis before excessive translation occurs. Evidence to date indicates that Grade II or larger slips requiring decompression should be fused. In addition, multiple segment listhesis, severe coronal plane deformities, increasing age, and osteoporosis have all been listed as potential contraindications to dynamic stabilization. We reviewed the exclusion and inclusion criteria found in various dynamic stabilization studies and investigational drug exemption (IDE) protocols. We summarize the reported limitations for both pedicle- and intraspinous-based systems. We then conducted a retrospective chart and imaging review of 100 consecutive cases undergoing fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. All patients in our cohort had been indicated for and eventually underwent decompression of lumbar stenosis secondary to spondylolisthesis. We estimated how many patients in our population would have been candidates for dynamic stabilization with either interspinous or pedicle-based systems. Using the criteria for instability outlined in the literature, 32 patients demonstrated translation requiring fusion surgery and 24 patients had instability unsuitable for dynamic stabilization. Six patients had two-level slips and were excluded. Two patients had coronal imbalance too great for dynamic systems. Twelve patients were over the age of 80 and 16 demonstrated osteoporosis as diagnosed by bone scan. Finally, we found two of our patients to have vertebral compression fractures adjacent to the site of instrumentation, which is a strict exclusion criteria in all dynamic trials. Thirty-four patients had zero exclusion criteria for intraspinous devices and 23 patients had none for PSB dynamic stabilization. Therefore, we estimate that 34 and 23% of degenerative spondylolisthesis patients indicated for surgery could have been treated with either intraspinous or pedicle-based dynamic devices, respectively.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCausalityClinical ProtocolsContraindicationsDecision Support TechniquesDisability EvaluationDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLumbar VertebraeMale

Identifiers

PMID19330364
PMCPMC2899657
OpenAlexW2045654625

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.