Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36826599›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 Society2023

The effect of various options for decompression of degenerated lumbar spine motion segments on the range of motion: a biomechanical in vitro study.

Sara Lener, Werner Schmölz, Anto Abramovic, Patrick Kluger, Claudius Thomé, Sebastian Hartmann

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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Sara LenerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. sara.lener@i-med.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-5644-2399
Werner SchmölzDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Anto AbramovicDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Patrick KlugerDepartment of Orthopedics, Erbach General Hospital, Erbach im Odenwald, Germany.
Claudius ThoméDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Sebastian HartmannDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is a common disease in the aging population. Decompression surgery represents the treatment standard, however, a risk of segmental destabilization depending on the approach and extent of decompression is discussed. So far, biomechanical studies on techniques were mainly conducted on non-degenerated specimens. This biomechanical in vitro study aimed to investigate the increase in segmental range of motion (ROM) depending on the extent of decompression in degenerated segments.

methodsTen fresh frozen lumbar specimens were embedded in polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and loaded in a spine tester with pure moments of ± 7.5 Nm. The specimens were tested in their intact state for lateral bending (LB), flexion/extension (FE) and axial rotation (AR). Subsequently, four different decompression techniques were performed: unilateral interlaminar decompression (DC1), unilateral with "over the top" decompression (DC2), bilateral interlaminar decompression (DC3) and laminectomy (DC4). The ROM of the index segment was reported as percent (%) of the native state.

resultsSpecimens were measured in their intact state prior to decompression. The mean ROM was defined as 100% (FE:6.3 ± 2.3°; LB:5.4 ± 2.8°; AR:3.0 ± 1.6°). Interventions showed a continuous ROM increase: FE (DC1: + 4% ± 4.3; DC2: + 4% ± 4.5; DC3: + 8% ± 8.3;DC4: + 20% ± 15.9), LB(DC1: + 4% ± 6.0; DC2: + 5% ± 7.3; DC3: + 8% ± 8.3; DC4: + 11% ± 9.9), AR (DC1: + 7% ± 6.0; DC2: + 9% ± 7.9; DC3: + 15% ± 11.5; DC4: + 19% ± 10.5). Significant increases in ROM for all motion directions (p < 0.05) were only obtained after complete laminectomy (DC4).

conclusionUnilateral and/or bilateral decompressive surgery resulted in a statistically insignificant ROM increase, whereas complete laminectomy showed statistically significant ROM increase. If this ROM increase also has an impact on the clinical outcome and how to identify segments at risk for secondary lumbar instability should be evaluated in further studies.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverDecompressionHumansLumbar VertebraeRange of Motion, ArticularBiomechanical testingDecompressive surgeryDegenerative disc diseaseLumbar spinal stenosisRange of motionSecondary lumbar instability

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.