ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Arthrodesis versus dynamic neutralization: A short/mid- and long-term retrospective evaluation in degenerative disk disease treatment.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Design: This was a retrospective comparative study. Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform a clinical and radiological retrospective evaluation of the most used techniques for the lumbar degenerative disk disease (DDD) treatment: arthrodesis versus dynamic neutralization (DN)-Dynesys dynamic stabilization system. Methods: The study included 58 consecutive patients affected by lumbar DDD, 28 treated with rigid stabilization and 30 with DN at our department between 2003 and 2013. The clinical evaluation was performed through the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The radiographic evaluation was performed through standard and dynamic X-ray projections and magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Both techniques determined a clinical improvement in the postoperative period compared to the preoperative one. There were no significant differences between the postoperative VAS of the two techniques. The DN group postoperative ODI percentage showed a significant improvement ( Conclusions: We are confident in recommending arthrodesis and DN as effective techniques for lumbar DDD treatment. Both techniques are potentially burdened, with similar frequency, by the development of long-term adjacent segment disease.
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.