ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
A PEEK Rod-Based Dynamic Instrumentation Construct for the Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease, First Appraisal Based on Five-year Clinical and Radiological Findings.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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.
- A PEEK-Based Pedicle Screw System for One-Level Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: An Appraisal at a Five-Year Follow Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The present retrospective study delivers first results after the use of a pedicle based, screw and peek rod system. Emphasis was placed on the ability of the construct to prevent adjacent segment disease at an average of 5 years follow-up by maintaining a certain degree of movement in the index segment. This was evaluated via functional X Rays before and after surgery. Patients and Methods: The cohort comprised 100 patients which received decompressive surgery in one or more segments with dynamic instrumentation for stenosis of the lumbar spinal canal and degenerative spondylolisthesis. We analyzed diagnostic imagery including functional X Rays prior and after surgery as well as cohort demographics such as reoperation rate, complications and overall patient satisfaction. Results: The average age was 68 years, at 58 months follow-up there were 43 cases of radiological adjacent segment disease. We defined a radiological ASD as an increase of the osteoarthritis on the Wiener scale and stenosis of the spinal canal on the MRI scans. In our cohort 80 patients benefited from the surgery, either being pain free or having improved symptoms at the mean follow-up with the others either requiring renewed surgery or having developed clinically significant ASD. There was no significant statistical correlation between area of spinal canal, gender and outcome. Conclusion: In one segment constructs the system being evaluated showed no major disadvantage when compared to similar non-fusion pedicle-based techniques nor was it able to consequently prevent ASD. Under the clinical point of view there was in our opinion no marked benefit when compared against decompressive surgery and fusion as the accepted standard. Regarding the multi segment instrumentation further larger number studies are needed to reach a conclusion.
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.