ArticleVeterinary and comparative orthopaedics and traumatology : V.C.O.T2026
Comparison of Stand-Alone Cage versus Intervertebral Cage with Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation in Dogs with Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis.
Article in Veterinary and comparative orthopaedics and traumatology : V.C.O.T, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs with a stand-alone intervertebral spacer (S group) and combined with a pedicle screw and rod fixation (S + PSRF group) in the lumbosacral junction. Study Design: Retrospective study. Medical records (2014-2023) were reviewed for dogs treated with a stand-alone intervertebral spacer (S group) or a spacer combined with PSRF (S + PSRF group). Data collected included clinical signs at the time of presentation, surgical technique, implant type, perioperative bacterial culture, complications, outcomes and subsidence. Results: Minor complications occurred in 10/11 dogs in the S group and 6/17 dogs in the S + PSRF group. Major complications occurred in 3/11 dogs in the S group and 5/17 dogs in the S + PSRF group. Long-term outcome was excellent in 63.6% dogs in the S group and 64.7% dogs in the S + PSRF group. Subsidence was noted in 75% of the cases in the S group compared with 33% of cases in the S + PSRF group. Bacterial cultures were positive in 6/28 cases. Conclusion: Both treatment options were associated with full return of function in 64 to 65% of cases. Complications were more frequent in the S group. The S + PSRF group showed less subsidence of the cage. There was more frequent evidence of bone ingrowth in the intervertebral spacer in the S + PSRF group. Based on the observations in this study, both treatment options are viable for the treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis with similar long-term outcomes; however, S + PSRF may result in less subsidence and better fusion and may therefore be preferable.
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.