ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Clinical value of flexion-extension radiographs with bracket support for lumbar stability assessment.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study proposes a novel standardized technique to evaluate lumbar stability in lumbar lateral flexion-extension radiographs and determine whether the most reliable intraoperative reference level of extension can be attained.
methodsA total of 104 patients undergoing surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disease were included in the study. Radiographs in the conventional extension position (CE) and the extension position with bracket support (CEB) and intraoperative prone fluoroscopic radiographs of patients were included in this study. The slip angle (SA) and slip percentage (SP) were compared for these three radiographic methods. Furthermore, the correlation of differences in the SA and SP were examined among different spinal segments.
resultsAmong 104 patients (mean age 58 years, 54% women) with a total of 147 operated segments examined, the average SA (10.65°±3.65°) and SP (12.18%±4.91%) with bracket support and SA (10.62°±3.67°) and SP (12.19%±4.90%) during intraoperative muscle relaxation were not significantly different (P=0.54; 0.91). However, the SA and SP in the CEB and intraoperative muscle relaxation conditions were significantly increased compared with the SA (6.46°±3.23°) and SP (7.87%±4.26%) obtained in the CE condition (all P<0.001). Both surgeons demonstrated high reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficient values ranging from 0.8 to 1.0 (P<0.001) for SP and SA measurements.
conclusionsCE radiographs underestimate the degree of displacement of lumbar instability. The CEB position reduces patient back pain and increases the feeling of safety, leading to a greater level of extension. This outcome aligns with the intraoperative muscle relaxation findings.
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.