ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Adjacent segment degeneration after superior facet joint violation of the lumbar spine.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 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.
- Commentary on "Adjacent segment degeneration after superior facet joint violation of the lumbar spine".North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facet joint violation (FJV) is a recognized complication of pedicle screw fixation and has been proposed as a driver of adjacent segment disease (ASD). Biomechanical models suggest that FJV may alter segmental kinematics, but its clinical impact on degeneration and reoperation remains uncertain. This work evaluates whether superior FJV is associated with an increased risk of radiographic ASD or reoperation after lumbar fusion. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing lumbar pedicle screw fixation with postoperative CT imaging that captured the instrumentation and the cranial adjacent segment. Superior FJV was graded using an established 3-tier system. Follow-up imaging was assessed for disc height loss, progression of spondylolisthesis, coronal deformity, central stenosis, lateral recess height and a composite degeneration endpoint; reoperations were recorded. Propensity score weighting balanced measured covariates, and a weighted cox regression was used for time-to-event analyses. Results: Seventy-one patients met inclusion criteria, with FJV identified in 35 (49.3%). Weighted analyses demonstrated no significant association between FJV and disc height loss (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.54-2.72), progression of spondylolisthesis (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13-2.65), coronal deformity (HR 2.18, 95% CI 0.48-10.01), central stenosis (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.21-8.61), composite degeneration (HR 1.76, 95% CI 0.87-3.56), or reoperation (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12-1.62). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested that minor (grade 1) violations may contribute to axial instability, whereas full joint traversal (grade 2) may confer relative stability, though neither reached statistical significance. Conclusions: In this cohort with extended follow-up, superior FJV was not significantly associated with any measure of radiographic degeneration or reoperation. These findings suggest that FJV may not be a major determinant of long-term outcomes after lumbar fusion. Further biomechanical and clinical studies are warranted to clarify whether specific grades of FJV differentially affect cranial segment stability and screw performance. 140 characters: Superior FJV on CT didn't significantly increase hazards of disc height loss, listhesis, stenosis, deformity, or reop after fusion.
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.