Trial reportOrthopaedic surgery2017
Pull out Strength of Dual Outer Diameter Pedicle Screws Compared to Uncemented and Cemented Standard Pedicle Screws: A Biomechanical in vitro Study.
Trial report in Orthopaedic surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- S1 Dual Outer Diameter Screws Accelerate Early Fusion Compared with Conventional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Orthopedic Biomaterials in the Clinical Reconstruction of Osteoporotic Atlantoaxial Injuries: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison of clinical efficacy between endoscope-assisted oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Intraoperative lateral wall breach simulation in the cadaveric spine and the impact of thread designs of screws on pullout strength in the osteoporotic thoracic vertebrae: A biomechanical study in human cadavers.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2024Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of Pull-out Strength of Different Cementation and Pedicle Screw Placement Techniques in a Calf Spine Model.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Comparison of the Pull-Out Strength between a Novel Micro-Dynamic Pedicle Screw and a Traditional Pedicle Screw in Lumbar Spine.Orthopaedic surgery · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the potential of the dual outer diameter screw and systematically evaluate the pull-out force of the dual outer diameter screw compared to the uncemented and cemented standard pedicle screws with special regard to the pedicle diameter and the vertebra level.
methodsSixty vertebrae of five human spines (T
resultsSignificantly increased pull-out forces were measured for the cemented standard screw compared to the uncemented standard screw (+689 N, P < 0.001) and the dual outer diameter screw (+403 N, P < 0.001). Comparing the dual outer diameter screw to the uncemented standard screw in the total study group, a distinct but not significant increase was measured (+149 N, P = 0.114). Further analysis of these two screws, however, revealed a significant increase of pull-out force for the dual outer diameter screw in the lumbar region (+247 N, P = 0.040), as well as for a screw-to-pedicle diameter ratio between 0.6 and 1 (+ 488 N, P = 0.028).
conclusionsFor clinical application, cement augmentation remains the gold standard for increasing screw stability. According to our results, the use of a dual outer diameter screw is an interesting option to increase screw stability in the lumbar region without cement augmentation. For the thoracic region, however, the screw-to-pedicle diameter should be checked and attention should be paid to screw cut out, if the dual outer diameter screw is considered.
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.