ReviewTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Direct pars repair techniques for lumbar spondylolysis: a comparative literature review.
Review in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Lumbar spondylolysis, a pars interarticularis defect affecting approximately 3%-6% of the general population, presents a significant clinical challenge in young adults and athletes. When conservative management fails, direct pars repair offers an attractive alternative to spinal fusion by preserving segmental motion and reducing the risk of adjacent segment degeneration.This narrative review compares seven principal direct pars repair techniques-Buck's technique, Scott's wiring method, Morscher's hook-screw system, pedicle screw-based constructs, the V-rod/U-rod (Gillet technique), the smiley face rod construct, and the dual-stability construct (DSC)-evaluating their biomechanical properties, clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication profiles. Materials and methods: A narrative literature review was conducted examining metaanalyses, retrospective cohort studies, and biomechanical investigations published between 1970 and 2024. Primary outcome measures included fusion rates, complication rates, clinical success rates, and biomechanical stability. The inherent heterogeneity of included studies-encompassing varied patient populations, surgical technique modifications, follow-up durations, and outcome definitions-precludes formal metaanalytic synthesis and is addressed in the limitations section. Results: Pedicle screw-based techniques demonstrated the highest fusion rates (90.2%; N = 240, 14 studies) with complication rates of 12.8% and positive clinical outcomes in 80.1% of patients. Buck's technique showed fusion rates of 83.5% (N = 372, 27 studies) with complications in 13.4% and favourable outcomes in 84.3%. Scott's wiring achieved 81.6% fusion with 22.4% complications. Morscher's hook-screw system demonstrated 77.7% fusion rates (N = 193, five studies) with the highest complication rate at 27.4%. Modern constructs-the V-rod/U-rod, smiley face rod, and DSC-appear to offer comparable or superior outcomes to pedicle screw constructs in selected series. Age below 25 years emerged as the most critical determinant of success across all techniques. Conclusion: Pedicle screw-based direct pars repair appears to provide the most favourable fusion and complication profile among the classical techniques. Modern constructs (V-rod, smiley face, and DSC) show promising results and warrant prospective evaluation. Buck's technique remains a viable alternative in experienced hands. Morscher's hook-screw system should be reserved as a salvage option when pedicle screw trajectory is anatomically precluded. Patient selection criteria-including age below 45 years, minimal disc degeneration, and absence of significant spondylolisthesis-are central to surgical success.
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.