Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37093262›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

Biomechanics after spinal decompression and posterior instrumentation.

Marco D Burkhard, Anna-Katharina Calek, Marie-Rosa Fasser, Frédéric Cornaz, Jonas Widmer, José Miguel Spirig, Florian Wanivenhaus, Mazda Farshad

Open access · hybridAbstract 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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 10-Year trend of lateral lumbar interbody fusion and the impact of 3D-printed titanium in a high-volume academic center.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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion to address pseudarthrosis after prior posterior spinal instrumentation.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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Nationwide analysis of spinal surgery in Japan from 1994 to 2021.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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Biomechanical effects of incremental resection of the lumbar superior articular process using an endoscopic approach.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 · 2025
    Article
  12. The importance of the posterior osteoligamentous complex of the lumbar spine: dogma changing biomechanical insights.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 · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco D BurkhardDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. marco.burkhard@balgrist.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1501-1952
Anna-Katharina CalekDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-5096
Marie-Rosa FasserInstitute for Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Lengghalde 5, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4984-4127
Frédéric CornazDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-0445
Jonas WidmerInstitute for Biomechanics, Balgrist Campus, ETH Zurich, Lengghalde 5, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3676-008X
José Miguel SpirigDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5470-284X
Florian WanivenhausDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1735-4951
Mazda FarshadDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7190-1127
University of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to elucidate segmental range of motion (ROM) before and after common decompression and fusion procedures on the lumbar spine.

methodsROM of fourteen fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar segments (L1/2: 4, L3/4: 5, L5/S1: 5) was evaluated in six loading directions: flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression/distraction (AC). ROM was tested with and without posterior instrumentation under the following conditions: 1) native 2) after unilateral laminotomy, 3) after midline decompression, and 4) after nucleotomy.

resultsMedian native ROM was FE 6.8°, LB 5.6°, and AR 1.7°, AS 1.8 mm, LS 1.4 mm, AC 0.3 mm. Unilateral laminotomy significantly increased ROM by 6% (FE), 3% (LB), 12% (AR), 11% (AS), and 8% (LS). Midline decompression significantly increased these numbers to 15%, 5%, 21%, 20%, and 19%, respectively. Nucleotomy further increased ROM in all directions, most substantially in AC of 153%. Pedicle screw fixation led to ROM decreases of 82% in FE, 72% in LB, 42% in AR, 31% in AS, and 17% in LS. In instrumented segments, decompression only irrelevantly affected ROM.

conclusionsThe amount of posterior decompression significantly impacts ROM of the lumbar spine. The here performed biomechanical study allows creation of a simplified rule of thumb: Increases in segmental ROM of approximately 10%, 20%, and 50% can be expected after unilateral laminotomy, midline decompression, and nucleotomy, respectively. Instrumentation decreases ROM by approximately 80% in bending moments and accompanied decompression procedures only minorly destabilize the instrumentation construct.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverDecompressionHumansLaminectomyLumbar VertebraeRange of Motion, ArticularBiomechanicsDecompressionFusionNucleotomyRange of motion

Identifiers

PMID37093262
OpenAlexW4366822316

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.