Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26193968›Full record

ArticleDer Orthopade2015

[Cement augmentation on the spine : Biomechanical considerations].

J P Kolb, L Weiser, R A Kueny, G Huber, J M Rueger, W Lehmann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Does augmentation increase the pull-out force of symphyseal screws? A biomechanical cadaver study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J P KolbAbteilung für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
L WeiserAbteilung für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
R A KuenyInstitut für Biomechanik, Technische Universität Hamburg Harburg, Denickestrasse 15, 21073, Hamburg, Deutschland.
G HuberInstitut für Biomechanik, Technische Universität Hamburg Harburg, Denickestrasse 15, 21073, Hamburg, Deutschland.
J M RuegerAbteilung für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
W LehmannAbteilung für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Zentrum für Operative Medizin, Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. wlehmann@uke.de.
Hamburg University of Technology · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVertebral compression fractures are the most common osteoporotic fractures. Since the introduction of vertebroplasty and screw augmentation, the management of osteoporotic fractures has changed significantly.

aimsThe biomechanical characteristics of the risk of adjacent fractures and novel treatment modalities for osteoporotic vertebral fractures, including pure cement augmentation by vertebroplasty, and cement augmentation of screws for posterior instrumentation, are explored. MATERIALS AND

methodsEighteen human osteoporotic lumbar spines (L1-5) adjacent to vertebral bodies after vertebroplasty were tested in a servo-hydraulic machine. As augmentation compounds we used standard cement and a modified low-strength cement. Different anchoring pedicle screws were tested with and without cement augmentation in another cohort of human specimens with a simple pull-out test and a fatigue test that better reflects physiological conditions.

resultsCement augmentation in the osteoporotic spine leads to greater biomechanical stability. However, change in vertebral stiffness resulted in alterations with the risk of adjacent fractures. By using a less firm cement compound, the risk of adjacent fractures is significantly reduced. Both screw augmentation techniques resulted in a significant increase in the withdrawal force compared with the group without cement. Augmentation using perforated screws showed the highest stability in the fatigue test. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe augmentation of cement leads to a significant change in the biomechanical properties. Differences in the stability of adjacent vertebral bodies increase the risk of adjacent fractures, which could be mitigated by a modified cement compound with reduced strength. Screws that were specifically designed for cement application displayed greatest stability in the fatigue test.

Indexed as

AgedBone CementsBone ScrewsCombined Modality TherapyFemaleFrictionHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleOsteoporotic FracturesRadiographySpinal FracturesSpinal FusionStress, MechanicalTreatment OutcomeVertebroplastyBone CementsBone cementsCompression fracturesOsteoporosispedicle screwsVertebroplasty

Identifiers

PMID26193968
OpenAlexW941674423

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.