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
Pedicle screw vs. pedicle screw-rod-hook direct repair for adolescent lumbar spondylolysis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare clinical outcomes, time to fusion, and post-fusion segmental ROM between pedicle screw (PS) direct repair and pedicle screw-rod-laminar hook (PSRH) repair in adolescents/young adults with non-spondylolisthetic lumbar spondylolysis.
methodsWe included patients aged 15-25 years treated from 2015 to 2022 at three centers. All patients had predominant low back pain, failed conservative treatment, no neurological symptoms, and no vertebral slip. The defect was decorticated and grafted with allograft. Patients underwent PS or PSRH repair. CT was obtained at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 28 months until fusion. Fusion was adjudicated by independent reviewers. After CT-confirmed fusion, implants were removed in all patients. Segmental ROM was measured on flexion-extension radiographs using the Cobb angle difference.
resultsFifty-seven patients were included (PS 27; PSRH 30). Follow-up was similar (21.8 ± 3.39 vs. 21.4 ± 3.02 months; P = 0.660). The PS group had higher costs, longer hospital stay, and greater blood loss (all P < 0.05). Preoperative VAS and ODI were comparable. At final follow-up, VAS was similar (2.07 ± 0.87 vs. 1.83 ± 0.64; P = 0.23). ODI showed a borderline difference (9.51 ± 6.16 vs. 12.06 ± 3.11; P = 0.050). Time to fusion was shorter with PS repair (10.9 ± 2.90 vs. 13.0 ± 3.28 months; P = 0.013). After implant removal, ROM was smaller in the PS group (3.33 ± 1.03 vs. 5.46 ± 0.77; P = 0.001). Complications were infrequent in both groups.
conclusionBoth techniques improved pain and function with low complication rates. PS repair was associated with faster fusion but smaller post-fusion ROM after implant removal. Construct choice may influence fusion progression and post-fusion kinematics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42714600What 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.