Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37284900›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

Interspinous and spinolaminar synthetic vertebropexy of the lumbar spine.

Anna-Katharina Calek, Franziska Altorfer, Marie-Rosa Fasser, Jonas Widmer, Mazda Farshad

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT06024785 (Comparison of Ligamentous Fixation Technique), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

NCT06024785 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Ligamentous Fixation Technique (Vertebropexy) Versus Conventional Decompression or Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBalgrist University HospitalRan2025 to 2028Enrolled164ConditionsDegeneration, Spinal Stenosis, Fusion of SpineArmsVertebropexy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Biomechanical simulation of long-term performance of a tendon-based spinal stabilization (VPX).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
  2. Article
  3. Fusion versus decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking.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 · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Anna-Katharina CalekDepartment of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland. anna-katharina.calek@balgrist.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-5096
Franziska AltorferDepartment of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Marie-Rosa FasserSpine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jonas WidmerSpine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mazda FarshadDepartment of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop and test synthetic vertebral stabilization techniques ("vertebropexy") that can be used after decompression surgery and furthermore to compare them with a standard dorsal fusion procedure.

methodsTwelve spinal segments (Th12/L1: 4, L2/3: 4, L4/5: 4) were tested in a stepwise surgical decompression and stabilization study. Stabilization was achieved with a FiberTape cerclage, which was pulled through the spinous process (interspinous technique) or through one spinous process and around both laminae (spinolaminar technique). The specimens were tested (1) in the native state, after (2) unilateral laminotomy, (3) interspinous vertebropexy and (4) spinolaminar vertebropexy. The segments were loaded in flexion-extension (FE), lateral shear (LS), lateral bending (LB), anterior shear (AS) and axial rotation (AR).

resultsInterspinous fixation significantly reduced ROM in FE by 66% (p = 0.003), in LB by 7% (p = 0.006) and in AR by 9% (p = 0.02). Shear movements (LS and AS) were also reduced, although not significantly: in LS reduction by 24% (p = 0.07), in AS reduction by 3% (p = 0.21). Spinolaminar fixation significantly reduced ROM in FE by 68% (p = 0.003), in LS by 28% (p = 0.01), in LB by 10% (p = 0.003) and AR by 8% (p = 0.003). AS was also reduced, although not significantly: reduction by 18% (p = 0.06). Overall, the techniques were largely comparable. The spinolaminar technique differed from interspinous fixation only in that it had a greater effect on shear motion.

conclusionSynthetic vertebropexy is able to reduce lumbar segmental motion, especially in flexion-extension. The spinolaminar technique affects shear forces to a greater extent than the interspinous technique.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverHumansLaminectomyRange of Motion, ArticularLumbar fusionLumbar spineSemi-rigidSpinal stabilizationVertebropexy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.