ArticleNeurospine2024
A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Different Topping-off Devices and Their Influence on the Sacroiliac Joint Following Lumbosacral Fusion Surgery.
Article in Neurospine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInterspinous spacer (ISS)-based and pedicle screw-rod dynamic fixator (PDF)-based topping-off devices have been applied in lumbar/lumbosacral fusion surgeries for preventing the development of proximal adjacent segment degeneration. However, little attention has been paid to sacroiliac joint (SIJ), which belongs to the adjacent joints. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare how these 2 topping-off devices affect the SIJ biomechanics.
methodsA validated, normal finite-element lumbopelvic model (L3-pelvis) was initially adjusted to simulate interbody fusion with rigid fixation at the L5-S1 level, and then the DIAM or BioFlex system was instrumented at the L4-5 level to establish the ISS-based or PDF-based topping-off model, respectively. All the developed models were loaded with moments of 4 physiological motions using hybrid loading protocol.
resultsCompared with the rigid fusion model (without topping-off devices), range of motion and von-Mises stress at the SIJs were increased by 23.1%-64.1% and 23.6%-62.8%, respectively, for the ISS-based model and by 51.2%-126.7% and 50.4%-108.7%, respectively, for the PDF-based model.
conclusionThe obtained results suggest that the PDF-based topping-off device leads to higher increments in SIJ motion and stress than ISS-based topping-off device following lumbosacral fusion, implying topping-off technique could be linked to an increased risk of SIJ degeneration, especially when using PDF-based device.
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.