ArticleMedical science monitor basic research2018
Biomechanical Stability of a Cross-Rod Connection with a Pedicle Screw System.
Article in Medical science monitor basic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Comparison of Different Numbers and Configurations of Cross-Links in Long-Segment Spinal Fixation-An Experimental Study in a Porcine Model.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation Alone Versus Debridement and Fusion Surgery for the Treatment of Early Spinal Tuberculosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- Comprehensive Assessment of the Psychological Burden for Students in Physical Education Classes in Chinese Universities.Medical science monitor basic research · 2018Article
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
BACKGROUND Surgery with pedicle screw instrumentation does not provide sufficient torsional stability. This leads to pseudoarthrosis, loosening of the pedicle screws, and, ultimately, implant failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS Functional spinal units from 18 deer were evaluated using a 6-axis material testing machine. As specimen models, we prepared an intact model, a damaged model, a cross-rod model, and a cross-link model. We measured the range of motion (ROM) during bending and rotation tests. RESULTS The range of motions of cross-rod model were almost equal to those of cross-link model during the bending test. In the rotation test, the average ranges of motion of the intact, cross-rod, and cross-link models were 2.9°, 3.1°, and 3.9° during right rotation and 2.9°, 3.1°, and 4.1° during left rotation, respectively. The range of motions of the cross-rod model were significantly smaller than those of the cross-link model during the rotation test. The range of motions of the intact model were significantly smaller than those of the cross-link model during the rotation test, but there were no statistically significant differences between the range of motions of intact model and cross-rod model during the rotation test. CONCLUSIONS The stability of spinal fixation such as cross-rod model is equal to the fixation using the pedicle screw system during bending tests and equal to that of the intact spine during rotation tests.
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.