ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Dynamic versus rigid lumbar fixation: A multimodal comparison of paraspinal muscle morphology, electromyography, and functional outcomes.
Article in 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, 2026. 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.
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
STUDY
designThis cross-sectional study compared the structural, functional, and neuromuscular outcomes of dynamic versus rigid lumbar fixation. A multimodal framework integrating radiological, morphological, electrophysiological, and patient-reported measures was employed.
objectivesThe primary aim was to determine whether dynamic stabilization systems better preserve paraspinal muscle integrity and neuromuscular function than rigid constructs, while also reducing adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and disability.
methodsSeventy-five participants were allocated to three groups: dynamic rod group (DRG, n = 25), rigid rod group (RRG, n = 25), and healthy controls (CG, n = 25). Paraspinal muscle volumes were assessed via MRI, and ASD was graded using Pfirrmann and Weishaupt classifications. Functional outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), McGill torso endurance tests, and surface electromyography (sEMG) normalized to maximum voluntary contraction.
resultsThe DRG demonstrated significantly greater multifidus and erector spinae volumes (p < 0.001, d ≈ 1.0), superior core endurance (p < 0.001), and lower ODI scores (p = 0.027, d = 0.64) compared to the RRG. sEMG showed higher normalized contraction activity in DRG (p < 0.001, d = 1.10) and elevated resting activity in RRG (p = 0.012, d = 0.73). Radiological findings revealed more severe disc degeneration in RRG (p = 0.018). Time since surgery correlated with progressive degeneration and muscle atrophy, more pronounced in RRG (e.g., r=-0.63, p < 0.001).
conclusionsDynamic lumbar fixation is associated with better preservation paraspinal muscle morphology, shows better neuromuscular activation profiles, and slows degenerative progression compared with rigid systems. These findings underscore the clinical importance of motion-preserving implants and highlight the role of early rehabilitation in optimizing postoperative recovery and long-term functional outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41398121What 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.