ArticleJOR spine2023
An
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical effects of partial and full L4-L5 disc nucleotomy: a coupled musculoskeletal finite element modeling study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of four in vitro test methods to assess nucleus pulposus replacement device expulsion risk.JOR spine · 2024Article
- AnJOR spine · 2023Article
- Quantifying internal intervertebral disc strains to assess nucleus replacement device designs: a digital volume correlation and ultra-high-resolution MRI study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- 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 medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.