ArticleDer Orthopade2010
[Pedicle screw-based systems for dynamic stabilization : An insight into the philosophy, technique, indications and success of these systems].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pedicle screw-based dorsal dynamic systems for segmental stabilization of the lumbar spine are an addition to established surgical methods. They differ in terms of their kinetics as well as their materials. The long-term load on these systems is much higher than in spondylodesis systems, which can only successfully bear loads until bone fusion; cases of implant failure and screw loosening are not rare.Pedicle screw-based systems represent a therapeutic option when conservative treatment proves unsuccessful and fusion seems to be too early. Finding the correct indication versus that of established methods is complex given our limited knowledge to date; symptomatic segments with moderate degenerative changes in facet joints and disc height, as well as Modic 2-3 signs seem to be appropriate cases. The same is true of segments adjacent to planned fusions. Dynamic stabilization can be considered in the case of long fusion, cranial location in the lumbar spine and high likelihood of instability and deformity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20505924What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.