Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42677233›Full record

ReviewTurkish journal of medical sciences2026

Direct pars repair techniques for lumbar spondylolysis: a comparative literature review.

Kamil Çağrı Köse, Moustafa Ibrahim, Nicholas Donald Haden, John Afolayan, Hanny Anwar

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kamil Çağrı KöseDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Stanmore, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6246-6614
Moustafa IbrahimDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Stanmore, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3246-8111
Nicholas Donald HadenDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Stanmore, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1470-3528
John AfolayanDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Stanmore, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0670-6912
Hanny AnwarDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Stanmore, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2089-7908

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionSpondylolysisHumansPedicle ScrewsBuck techniquedual-stability constructMorscher’s hook-screwScott wiringsmiley face constructV-rod technique

Identifiers

PMID42677233
PMCPMC13528748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.