ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Bone resorption around the annular closure device during a postoperative follow-up of 8 years.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanical and Biological Treatments for Annulus Fibrosus Repair and Closure: A Review of Clinical Studies.Neurospine · 2026Review
- Beyond Pain Relief: Preventing Recurrence and Preserving Function After Lumbar Discectomy.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- ISASS Recommendations and Coverage Criteria for Bone-Anchored Annular Defect Closure Following Lumbar Discectomy: Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity-An ISASS 2025 Policy Update on the Use of Bone-Anchored Annular Closure to Prevent Reherniation in High-Risk Lumbar Discectomy Patients.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Bone anchoring annular suture technique for repairing annular defects at vertebral body edge following lumbar discectomy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAnnular closure device (ACD) implantation is considered to be an effective means of preventing reherniation after microdiscectomy; however, there is an issue: the bone may resorb around the ACD. The causes of vertebral bone resorption remain unexplored; the dynamics of changes in bone resorption around the ACD have not yet been assessed or characterized.
methodsOne hundred thirty-three patients underwent ACD implantation after microdiscectomy, and 107 of them were followed up for 8 years after surgery (Oswestry, VAS). Lumbar CT scans helped characterize the bone resorption area around the ACD.
resultsThe median of follow-up was 85 [74; 93] months (from 73 to 105 months). The prevalence of bone resorption around the ACD was up to 63.6%, and it was mainly around the polymer mesh of the ACD (70.6%). The resorbed bone volume increased with time and reached its maximum of 5.2 cm
conclusionThe majority of patients (up to 63.6%) with implanted ACDs have vertebral bone resorption around them. The bone resorption area around the ACD mesh increases with time to up to 12% of the vertebral body volume, with no clinical evidence, though. The formation of a sclerotic rim prevents the bone resorption area from further growth. If the volume of the intervertebral disc before surgery is less than 13.2 cm
Indexed as
Identifiers
38280105What 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.