ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Biomechanical restoration in unilateral facet arthroplasty: a cadaveric evaluation.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facet incompetency can lead to altered spine biomechanics. However, while total posterior arthroplasty techniques in lieu of fusion are of increasing interest, unilateral techniques are yet to be investigated. This study aimed to assess the biomechanical effect of a unilateral facet arthroplasty (UFA) system on motion and loading characteristics at the treated L4-5 level. Methods: Seven cadaveric spines from L3-Sacrum were tested within the multidirectional pure moment bending model between 0 to ± 10 Nm in flexion-extension (FE), flexion-extension with 400 N of compressive follower load (FE-FL), axial rotation (AR), and lateral bending (LB). We measured the L4-L5 angular range of motion, the intradiscal pressure, and the contralateral facet contact force. Each specimen was tested in intact (I), capsulotomy (C), medial facetectomy (MF), total facetectomy (TF), and UFA conditions. We also measured the load transfer at the bone-implant interface in the UFA condition. Results: UFA significantly restored 93% (FE), 77% (FE-FL), 123% (AR), and 106% (LB) of the native range of motion (p<.05). UFA significantly restored the native intradiscal pressure during compressive follower load (I:173±67KPa vs. TF:103± 82KPa vs. UFA:174±69KPa), and partially during contra-axial rotation (I:32±27KPa vs. TF:81±55KPa vs. UFA:59±46KPa). No significant changes were observed in facet contact force. Contra-axial rotation induced the most substantial loads transferred through the bone-implant interface. Conclusions: UFA is most effective at restoring native intervertebral disc load transfer without altering facet loading at the treated level. UFA is equivalent to the intact condition in FE, FE-FL, and LB, but larger in AR, even after reverting 55% of induced instability.
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.