ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
In Vitro Biomechanical Experiment on the Effect of Unilateral Partial Facetectomy Performed by Percutaneous Endoscopy on the Stability of Lumbar Spine.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Biomechanics and Motion Analysis: From Human Performance to Clinical Practice.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomechanical restoration in unilateral facet arthroplasty: a cadaveric evaluation.North American Spine Society journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study's purpose is to investigate the lumbar biomechanical effects of unilateral partial facetectomy (UPF) of different facet joint (FJ) portions under percutaneous endoscopy.
methodsForty fresh calf spine models were used to simulate UPF under a physiological load performed through three commonly used needle insertion points (IPs): (1) The apex of the superior FJ (as the first IP); (2) The midpoint of the ventral side of the superior FJ (as the second IP); (3) The lowest point of the ventral side of the superior FJ (as the third IP). The range of motion (ROM) and the L4/5 intradiscal maximum pressure (IMP) were measured and analyzed under a physiological load in all models during flexion, extension, left-right lateral flexion, and left-right axial rotation.
resultsWhen UPF was performed through the second IP, the ROM of the lumbar spine and the L4/5 IMP in the calf spine models were not statistically different from the intact calf spine model.
conclusionsUPF through the second IP resulted in a minimal impact on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine. Thus, it might be considered the most appropriate IP for UPF.
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.