Marie-Rosa Fasser
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Interests
Marie-Rosa Fasser has a total of 39 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Jonas Widmer
Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
13 shared publications - Mazda Farshad
University Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
9 shared publications - Frédéric Cornaz
Spine Biomechanics, Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
8 shared publications - Anna-Katharina Calek
University Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
7 shared publications - José Miguel Spirig
University Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
7 shared publications Mazda Farshad
Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
6 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 7 October 2026
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
The destabilizing effect of cervical foraminotomy—an ex vivo biomechanical study
- 7 October 2026
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
Open AccessThe destabilizing effect of cervical foraminotomy—an ex vivo biomechanical study
- Open Access
- 12 August 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open
- Vol. 8 (3)
Stepwise micro-CT analysis of sample processing effects on the 3D morphology of human intervertebral discs
- 12 August 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open
- Vol. 8 (3)
Open AccessStepwise micro-CT analysis of sample processing effects on the 3D morphology of human intervertebral discs
- Open Access
- 20 December 2025
- Published by Elsevier in North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ)
- Vol. 25, 100842
PMMA-augmentation of the spinous process as an enhancing-protective measure against bone failure in “through the spinous process-vertebropexy”
- 20 December 2025
- Published by Elsevier in North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ)
- Vol. 25, 100842
Open AccessPMMA-augmentation of the spinous process as an enhancing-protective measure against bone failure in “through the spinous process-vertebropexy”
- Open Access
- 22 February 2025
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 25 (8) , 1841-1848
Failure forces of different interspinous vertebropexy techniques
- 22 February 2025
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 25 (8) , 1841-1848
Open AccessFailure forces of different interspinous vertebropexy techniques
- 30 September 2024
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 25 (2) , 380-388
Stability of medially and laterally malpositioned screws: a biomechanical study on cadavers
- 30 September 2024
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 25 (2) , 380-388
Stability of medially and laterally malpositioned screws: a biomechanical study on cadavers
- Open Access
- 3 November 2023
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 24 (5) , 889-898
Load distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation
- 3 November 2023
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 24 (5) , 889-898
Open AccessLoad distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation
- Open Access
- 21 October 2023
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 24 (4) , 730-735
Intraoperative anteroposterior and oblique fluoroscopic views for detection of mediolateral pedicle screw misplacement in the lumbar spine: a randomized cadaveric study
- 21 October 2023
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 24 (4) , 730-735
Open AccessIntraoperative anteroposterior and oblique fluoroscopic views for detection of mediolateral pedicle screw misplacement in the lumbar spine: a randomized cadaveric study
- 1 October 2023
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in JBJS Case Connector
- Vol. 13 (4)
Vertebropexy as a Ligamentous Stabilization for Degenerative Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis
Case: Three patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis were treated with vertebropexy, a new surgical technique that replaces rigid fusion with ligamentous stabilization. Clinical outcomes, functional radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging were used to document the early clinical results of this biomechanically established and promising new surgical method. Conclusion: Vertebropexy may be a valuable alternative to rigid fusion in the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.
- 1 October 2023
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in JBJS Case Connector
- Vol. 13 (4)
Vertebropexy as a Ligamentous Stabilization for Degenerative Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis
Case: Three patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis were treated with vertebropexy, a new surgical technique that replaces rigid fusion with ligamentous stabilization. Clinical outcomes, functional radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging were used to document the early clinical results of this biomechanically established and promising new surgical method. Conclusion: Vertebropexy may be a valuable alternative to rigid fusion in the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.
- Open Access
- 12 July 2023
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 23 (11) , 1730-1737
Lumbar vertebropexy after unilateral total facetectomy
- 12 July 2023
- Published by Elsevier in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 23 (11) , 1730-1737
Open AccessLumbar vertebropexy after unilateral total facetectomy
- Open Access
- 24 April 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in European Spine Journal
- Vol. 32 (6) , 1876-1886
Biomechanics after spinal decompression and posterior instrumentation
Purpose: The aim of this study was to elucidate segmental range of motion (ROM) before and after common decompression and fusion procedures on the lumbar spine. Methods: ROM of fourteen fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar segments (L1/2: 4, L3/4: 5, L5/S1: 5) was evaluated in six loading directions: flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression/distraction (AC). ROM was tested with and without posterior instrumentation under the following conditions: 1) native 2) after unilateral laminotomy, 3) after midline decompression, and 4) after nucleotomy. Results: Median native ROM was FE 6.8°, LB 5.6°, and AR 1.7°, AS 1.8 mm, LS 1.4 mm, AC 0.3 mm. Unilateral laminotomy significantly increased ROM by 6% (FE), 3% (LB), 12% (AR), 11% (AS), and 8% (LS). Midline decompression significantly increased these numbers to 15%, 5%, 21%, 20%, and 19%, respectively. Nucleotomy further increased ROM in all directions, most substantially in AC of 153%. Pedicle screw fixation led to ROM decreases of 82% in FE, 72% in LB, 42% in AR, 31% in AS, and 17% in LS. In instrumented segments, decompression only irrelevantly affected ROM. Conclusions: The amount of posterior decompression significantly impacts ROM of the lumbar spine. The here performed biomechanical study allows creation of a simplified rule of thumb: Increases in segmental ROM of approximately 10%, 20%, and 50% can be expected after unilateral laminotomy, midline decompression, and nucleotomy, respectively. Instrumentation decreases ROM by approximately 80% in bending moments and accompanied decompression procedures only minorly destabilize the instrumentation construct.
- 24 April 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in European Spine Journal
- Vol. 32 (6) , 1876-1886
Open AccessBiomechanics after spinal decompression and posterior instrumentation
Purpose: The aim of this study was to elucidate segmental range of motion (ROM) before and after common decompression and fusion procedures on the lumbar spine. Methods: ROM of fourteen fresh-frozen human cadaver lumbar segments (L1/2: 4, L3/4: 5, L5/S1: 5) was evaluated in six loading directions: flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression/distraction (AC). ROM was tested with and without posterior instrumentation under the following conditions: 1) native 2) after unilateral laminotomy, 3) after midline decompression, and 4) after nucleotomy. Results: Median native ROM was FE 6.8°, LB 5.6°, and AR 1.7°, AS 1.8 mm, LS 1.4 mm, AC 0.3 mm. Unilateral laminotomy significantly increased ROM by 6% (FE), 3% (LB), 12% (AR), 11% (AS), and 8% (LS). Midline decompression significantly increased these numbers to 15%, 5%, 21%, 20%, and 19%, respectively. Nucleotomy further increased ROM in all directions, most substantially in AC of 153%. Pedicle screw fixation led to ROM decreases of 82% in FE, 72% in LB, 42% in AR, 31% in AS, and 17% in LS. In instrumented segments, decompression only irrelevantly affected ROM. Conclusions: The amount of posterior decompression significantly impacts ROM of the lumbar spine. The here performed biomechanical study allows creation of a simplified rule of thumb: Increases in segmental ROM of approximately 10%, 20%, and 50% can be expected after unilateral laminotomy, midline decompression, and nucleotomy, respectively. Instrumentation decreases ROM by approximately 80% in bending moments and accompanied decompression procedures only minorly destabilize the instrumentation construct.