ArticleCureus2026
Clinical Outcomes of Lumbar Fusions Using Transfacet Screws.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionPosterior lumbar fusion is a widely used technique for stabilizing the lumbar spine, yet complications such as cranial facet violations, increased blood loss, and soft tissue trauma have prompted interest in minimally invasive alternatives. Transfacet screw fixation has emerged as a promising technique, offering advantages such as reduced surgical morbidity, lower risk of adjacent segment degeneration, and greater biomechanical stability in specific patient populations. This study investigates the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing one- or two-level lumbar fusion using transfacet screws.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on a consecutive series of 31 patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion using transfacet screws between 2010 and 2022. Patients were included if they received transfacet or translaminar screw fixation at one or two spinal levels and had a minimum of one-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and clinical data on reoperation rates and indications were evaluated.
resultsThe mean age of the study population was 53.3 years (range 26-83), and 54.8% were male. Most patients (71%) involved a combined interbody and posterior fusion. A total of 82 screws were implanted across 41 levels, with 48 being translaminar facet screws and 34 being transfacet screws. Patients experienced significant improvements in ODI (40.1 vs. 23.1; p<0.001), back pain (6.4 vs. 2.7; p<0.001), and leg pain (4.7 vs. 2.3; p=0.003) scores. The overall reoperation rate was 19.4% (n=6), with half of these reoperations addressing preexisting pathology rather than surgical failure. Five of the six reoperations (83.3%) involved the use of transfacet screws at additional levels. Time from index to reoperation was shorter on average for continued symptomatic patients (19.7 months) than those who developed symptoms due to new pathologies (49.7 months).
conclusionThis study found that the use of transfacet screw fixation provides a viable alternative to traditional pedicle screws, offering significant pain relief and functional improvement.
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.