ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Comparison of the smiley face rod method versus intervertebral fusion for the treatment of L5 spondylolysis in adults.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Reference Rod for "Smiley Face Rod" Repair of Lumbar Spondylolysis in a Patient with High Body Mass Index.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) combined with pars repair using a U-shaped rod technique for two-level lumbar spondylolysis: case report and technical note.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
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
Purpose: For patients who suffered from L5 spondylolysis and fail to improve using conservative treatment, the best surgical strategy remains controversial. This study compares the efficacy of the treatment of L5 spondylolysis using the smiley face rod (SFR) method versus intervertebral fusion (IF). Methods: We analyzed 38 patients with L5 spondylolysis who underwent surgery in our department between January 2017 and June 2019. Of these, 32 patients were included in our study: 14 patients in the SFR group and 18 patients in the IF group. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage time, length of stay and postoperative complications were compared. The pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) were evaluated before operation and at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The changes in range of motion (ROM) in L4/5 and L5/S1 in these two groups before and after surgery were measured through imaging examinations and the bone graft fusion rate was assessed according to the Brown standard. Results: The operation time of the SFR group was much shorter than that of the IF group (98.8 ± 8.3 vs. 113.8 ± 8.6 min, Conclusion: The SFR and IF both improve the clinical symptoms and quality of life of patients with L5 spondylolysis. However, the SFR technique had the advantages of a shorter operation time and less blood loss than IF; it could also preserve the ROM of the surgical segment and had little influence on adjacent segments in short-term follow-ups.
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.