Observational studyJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2018
Clinical experiences with a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in lumbar spinal surgery: 2 years and no more.
Observational study in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating dorsal root ganglion stimulation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: proof of concept study.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization with TLIF Versus Dynamic Stabilization Alone in Degenerative Lumbar Instability.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Bioactive Therapies for Degenerative Disc Disease: Challenges and Innovations.World neurosurgery · 2025Article
- A PEEK-Based Pedicle Screw System for One-Level Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: An Appraisal at a Five-Year Follow Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- A PEEK Rod-Based Dynamic Instrumentation Construct for the Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease, First Appraisal Based on Five-year Clinical and Radiological Findings.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Flexible support material maintains disc height and supports the formation of hydrated tissue engineered intervertebral discs in vivo.JOR spine · 2024Article
- Enhancing PEEK surface bioactivity: Investigating the effects of combining sulfonation with sub-millimeter laser machining.Materials today. Bio · 2023Article
- Complications in Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinically Used Cages.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Subgaleal Effusion and Brain Midline Shift After Cranioplasty: A Retrospective Study Between Polyetheretherketone Cranioplasty and Titanium Cranioplasty After Decompressive Craniectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Biomechanical investigation of topping-off technique using an interspinous process device following lumbar interbody fusion under vibration loading.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- Upper and lower adjacent segment range of motion after fixation of different lumbar spine segments in the goat: anThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Mobility-Preserving Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.World neurosurgery: X · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDynamic spine implants were developed to prevent adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi). Purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of "topping off" devices following lumbar spinal fusion procedure using a PEEK-based dynamic rod system. Moreover, this study focused on the hypothesis that "topping off" devices can prevent ASD.
methodsThis prospective nonrandomized study included patients with indication for single-level lumbar fusion and radiological signs of ASD without instability. The exclusion criteria were previous lumbar spine surgery and no sign of disc degeneration in the adjacent segment according to magnetic resonance imaging. All patients were treated with single-level lumbar interbody fusion and dynamic stabilization of the cranial adjacent segment. Patients underwent a clinical examination and radiographs preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Analyses were performed on clinical data collected with the German Spine Registry using the core outcome measure index (COMI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain.
resultsA total of 22 patients (6 male and 16 female) with an average age of 57.6 years were included in the study; 20 patients completed the follow-up (FU). The average COMI score was 9.0 preoperatively, 4.2 at the 1-year FU, and 4.7 at the 2-year FU. The average preoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain were 7.7 and 7.1, respectively. At the 1-year FU, the scores were 4.25 for back pain and 2.2 for leg pain, and at the 2-year FU, the scores were 4.7 for back pain and 2.3 for leg pain. At FU, failure of the dynamic topping off implant material was verified in four cases, and ASD of the segment cranial to the topping off was confirmed in three cases.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate significant improvements in clinical outcomes and pain reduction after lumbar spinal fusion with topping off at 2 years after surgery. However, the implant failed due to the high rate of implant failure and the development of ASD in the segment cranial to the dynamic stabilized segment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.