Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29214371›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 Society2018

Biomechanical investigation of lumbar hybrid stabilization in two-level posterior instrumentation.

Aldemar Andres Hegewald, Sebastian Hartmann, Alexander Keiler, Kai Michael Scheufler, Claudius Thomé, Werner Schmoelz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Lumbar Stabilization with DSS-HPSDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Aldemar Andres Hegewald *Department of Neurosurgery, Helios Ostseeklinik Damp, Seute-Deern-Ring 20, 24351, Damp, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2022-2060
Sebastian Hartmann *Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Alexander KeilerDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Kai Michael ScheuflerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Klinikum Dortmund, Münsterstraße 240, 44145, Dortmund, Germany.
Claudius ThoméDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Werner SchmoelzDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. werner.schmoelz@i-med.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHybrid stabilization with a dynamic implant has been suggested to avoid adjacent segment disease by creating a smoother transition zone from the instrumented segments to the untreated levels above. This study aims to characterize the transition zones of two-level posterior instrumentation strategies for elucidating biomechanical differences between rigid fixation and the hybrid stabilization approach with a pedicle screw-based dynamic implant.

methodsEight human lumbar spines (L1-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of 7.5 Nm and with a hybrid loading protocol. The range of motion (ROM) of all segments for both loading protocols was evaluated and normalized to the native ROM.

resultsFor pure moment loading, ROM of the segments cranial to both instrumentations were not affected by the type of instrumentation (p > 0.5). The dynamic instrumentation in L3-4 reduced the ROM compared to intact (p < 0.05) but allowed more motion than the rigid fixation of the same segment (p < 0.05). Under hybrid loading testing, the cranial segments (L1-2, L2-3) had a significant higher ROM for both instrumentations compared to the intact (p < 0.05). Comparing the two instrumentations with each other, the rigid fixation resulted in a higher increased ROM of L1-2 and L2-3 than hybrid stabilization.

conclusionsRegardless of the implant, two-level posterior instrumentation was accompanied by a considerable amount of compensatory movement in the cranial untreated segments under the hybrid protocol. Hybrid stabilization, however, showed a significant reduction of this compensatory movement in comparison to rigid fixation. These results could support the surgical strategy of hybrid stabilization, whereas the concept of topping-off, including a healthy segment, is discouraged.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverHumansLumbar VertebraeMiddle AgedPedicle ScrewsRange of Motion, ArticularSpinal FusionDynamic stabilizationHybrid stabilizationLumbarLumbar fusionSpine biomechanicsTopping-off

Identifiers

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.