Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37361334›Full record

ArticleJOR spine2023

An

Tamanna Rahman, Nicoleta Baxan, Robert T Murray, Saman Tavana, Thomas P Schaer, Nigel Smith, Jonathan Bull, Nicolas Newell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JOR spine, 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. AnJOR spine · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. The effect of structural changes on the low strain rate behaviour of the intervertebral disc.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine
    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 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Tamanna RahmanBiomechanics Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering Imperial College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0331-0288
Nicoleta BaxanBiological Imaging Centre, Central Biomedical Services Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus London UK.
Robert T MurrayFemtosecond Optics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Department of Physics Imperial College London London UK.
Saman TavanaBiomechanics Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering Imperial College London London UK.
Thomas P SchaerDepartment of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA.
Nigel SmithDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science University College London Stanmore UK.
Jonathan BullDepartment of Neurosurgery BARTS Health NHS Trust London UK.
Nicolas NewellDepartment of Bioengineering Imperial College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1288-3990
Imperial College London · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBHammersmith Hospital · GBStanmore College · GBUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Nuclectomy, also known as nucleotomy, is a percutaneous surgical procedure performed to remove nucleus material from the center of the disc. Multiple techniques have been considered to perform a nuclectomy, however, the advantages and disadvantages of each are not well understood. Aims: This Material & Methods: Comparisons were made in terms of mass, volume and location of material removal, changes in disc height, and stiffness. Fifteen vertebra-disc-vertebra lumbar specimens were acquired from six donors (40 ± 13 years) and split into three groups. Before and after nucleotomy axial mechanical tests were performed and T2-weighted 9.4T MRIs were acquired for each specimen. Results: When using the automated shaver and rongeurs similar volumes of disc material were removed (2.51 ± 1.10% and 2.76 ± 1.39% of the total disc volume, respectively), while considerably less material was removed using the laser (0.12 ± 0.07%). Nuclectomy using the automated shaver and rongeurs significantly reduced the toe-region stiffness (p = 0.036), while the reduction in the linear region stiffness was significant only for the rongeurs group (p = 0.011). Post-nuclectomy, 60% of the rongeurs group specimens showed changes in the endplate profile while 40% from the laser group showed subchondral marrow changes. Discussion: From the MRIs, homogeneous cavities were seen in the center of the disc when using the automated shaver. When using rongeurs, material was removed non-homogeneously both from the nucleus and annulus regions. Laser ablation formed small and localized cavities suggesting that the technique is not suitable to remove large volumes of material unless it is developed and optimized for this application. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that both rongeurs and automated shavers can be used to remove large volumes of NP material but the reduced risk of collateral damage to surrounding tissues suggests that the automated shaver may be more suitable.

Indexed as

intervertebral disc biomechanicsnuclectomynucleus replacement surgery

Identifiers

PMID37361334
PMCPMC10285766
OpenAlexW4312134143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.