ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Use of Dynamic Spinal Instruments (Dynesys) in Adult Spinal Deformities According to Silva-Lenke and Berjano-Lamartina Classifications.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of 3D simulation and osteotomy guides in improving surgical outcomes for complex spinal deformities: a comparative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Dynamic vs. Rigid: Transforming the Treatment Landscape for Multisegmental Lumbar Degeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization with TLIF Versus Dynamic Stabilization Alone in Degenerative Lumbar Instability.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdult spinal deformities (ASD) present complex challenges in spine surgery. The diverse nature of these deformities requires a comprehensive understanding of their classification and treatment options. Traditional approaches, such as fusion and rigid stabilization are associated with complications, including screw loosening, breakage, proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), and pseudoarthrosis. Dynamic stabilization techniques have emerged as promising alternatives, to reduce these complications and preserve spinal motion.
objectiveThis study investigated the effectiveness of dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system in the surgical treatment of adult degenerative spinal deformities, with a particular emphasis on their classification.
methodsASDs were classified according to the Berjano-Lamartina (BL) and Silva-Lenke (SL) classifications. We analyzed the efficacy of the Dynesys system in enhancing sagittal balance, radiological parameters, and clinical outcomes in this context.
resultsDynamic stabilization of patients with ASDs using the Dynesys system significantly improved the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores and decreased the complication rates. Patients with BL types 2, 3, and 4 experienced a significant improvement in sagittal balance followed by sagittal vertical axis measurements (
conclusionThe SL and BL classifications, which were originally developed for rigid spinal stabilization, can be applied in dynamic stabilization. Furthermore, dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system can be used as an alternative to rigid stabilization in SL levels 2 and 3, and BL types 1, 2, and 3, and in some patients with type 4 ASDs.
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.