ArticleBioMed research international2022
Biomechanical Characterization of Unilateral and Bilateral Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Constructs.
Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Morselized corticocancellous bone as primary graft for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-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 · 2025Pooled it
- Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation Vs Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Single Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Outcomes, Cost Analysis, and Radiation Exposure.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation for treating two-level lumbar degenerative diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the biomechanical stability of two-level PLIF constructs with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixations. Methods: Six cadaveric lumbar segments were evaluated to assess biomechanical stability in response to pure moment loads applied in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Each specimen was tested in six sequential configurations: (1) intact baseline; (2) facetectomy; (3) unilateral pedicle screws (UPS); (4) bilateral pedicle screws (BPS); (5) unilateral pedicle screws and cage (UPSC); and (6) bilateral pedicle screws and cage (BPSC). Results: Significant reductions in motion were observed when comparing all instrumented conditions to the intact and facetectomy stages of testing. No significant differences in motion between UPS, BPS, UPSC, or BPSC were observed in response to FE range of motion (ROM) or neutral zone (NZ). ROM was significantly higher in the UPS stage compared to BPS in response to LB and AT loading. ROM was significantly higher in UPSC compared to BPSC in response to LB loading only. Similarly, NZ was significantly higher in UPSC compared to BPSC in response to only LB loading. In response to AT loading, ROM was significantly higher during UPS than BPS or BPSC; however, no significant differences were noted between UPSC and BPSC with respect to AT ROM or NZ. Conclusion: BPS fixation is biomechanically superior to UPS fixation in multilevel PLIF constructs. This was most pronounced during both LB loading. Interbody support did contribute significantly to immediate stability.
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.