ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2024
Can Dynamic Spinal Stabilization Be an Alternative to Fusion Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity Cases?
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of paraspinal muscle fatty infiltration in predicting adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- Unilateral Posterior Stabilization in Adult Spinal Pathologies: Comparative Clinical, Radiological, and Complication Outcomes of Dynamic Versus Rigid Systems.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRigid stabilization and fusion surgery are widely used for the correction of spinal sagittal and coronal imbalance (SCI). However, instrument failure, pseudoarthrosis, and adjacent segment disease are frequent complications of rigid stabilization and fusion surgery in elderly patients. In this study, we present the results of dynamic stabilization and 2-stage dynamic stabilization surgery for the treatment of spinal SCI. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed, especially as an alternative to fusion surgery.
methodsIn our study, spinal, sagittal, and coronal deformities were corrected with dynamic stabilization performed in a single session in patients with good bone quality (without osteopenia and osteoporosis), while 2-stage surgery was performed in patients with poor bone quality (first stage: percutaneous placement of screws; second stage: placement of dynamic rods and correction of spinal SCI 4-6 months after the first stage). One-stage dynamic spinal instrumentation was applied to 20 of 25 patients with spinal SCI, and 2-stage dynamic spinal instrumentation was applied to the remaining 5 patients.
resultsSpinal SCI was corrected with these stabilization systems. At 2-year follow-up, no significant loss was observed in the instrumentation system, while no significant loss of correction was observed in sagittal and coronal deformities.
conclusionIn adult patients with spinal SCI, single or 2-stage dynamic stabilization is a viable alternative to fusion surgery due to the very low rate of instrument failure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study questions the use of dynamic stabilization systems for the treatment of adult degenerative deformities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.