ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Dynamic stabilization for unilateral spinal pathologies: clinical efficacy and safety outcomes.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. 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.
- 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
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFusion operations using transpedicular screws and cages are commonly employed for spinal stabilization, but they present with drawbacks including increased rigidity and altered biomechanics. Complications such as adjacent segment disease, pseudoarthrosis, and implant failure are often associated with traditional rigid stabilization techniques. To address these challenges, unilateral dynamic stabilization has emerged as a novel approach for patients with unilateral spinal pathologies. This study aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of unilateral dynamic stabilization and bilateral dynamic stabilization methods.
methodsThis retrospective study encompassed 43 spinal patients who underwent surgery between 2017 and 2020, with at least 2 years of clinical and radiological follow-up. Parameters including demographic data, underlying pathologies, surgical complications, screw malposition rates, perioperative data, and clinical and radiological outcomes were analyzed. Pre- and post-operative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were compared to assess surgical efficacy.
resultsThe mean age of the study population was 39.13 ± 14.11 years, with a mean clinical follow-up period of 29.7 months. Both unilateral and bilateral approaches demonstrated comparable outcomes in symptomatic and radiological criteria, yielding significant improvements in pain levels and functional capacity. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores exhibited significant reductions in pain. The unilateral approach exhibited shorter hospital stays, reduced surgical durations, and lesser blood loss compared to the bilateral approach.
conclusionsUnilateral dynamic stabilization presents promising results in terms of stability, improved clinical outcomes, and reduced operation time and cost for patients with unilateral spinal pathologies. This approach offers effective stabilization without compromising mobility and biomechanics. However, caution is warranted when applying unilateral dynamic stabilization for multiple-level operations, as it may entail an increased risk of instrumentation failure.
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.