Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29761236›Full record

Observational studyEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018

Different pedicle osteosynthesis for thoracolumbar vertebral fractures in elderly patients.

Massimo Girardo, Alessandro Rava, Federico Fusini, Giosuè Gargiulo, Angela Coniglio, Pasquale Cinnella

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Massimo GirardoAOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, SC Chirurgia Vertebrale, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy. massimogirardo@libero.it.ORCID 0000-0002-6538-9294
Alessandro RavaScuola di Specializzazione in Ortopedia e Traumatologia di Torino, Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Federico FusiniScuola di Specializzazione in Ortopedia e Traumatologia di Torino, Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Giosuè GargiuloAOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, SC Chirurgia Vertebrale, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Angela ConiglioAOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, SC Chirurgia Vertebrale, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Pasquale CinnellaAOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, SC Chirurgia Vertebrale, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPedicle screws' stability, especially in osteoporotic fractures, is a really problem for spinal surgeons. Nowadays, little is known about the influence of different screw types and amount of cement applied. This single-center retrospective observational study has the aim of evaluating the middle- to long-term mechanical performances of different types of screws in elderly patients with thoracolumbar fractures. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 91 patients (37 males and 54 females), treated between 2011 and 2016, affected by somatic osteoporotic fractures aged over 65 years were treated. We divided patients into three different populations: solid screws, cannulated screws and cannulated screws augmented with poly methyl methacrylate cement (PMMA). Patients were radiologically evaluated with X-rays in pre- and post-surgery and at the follow-up (FU). Clinical evaluations were made with VAS and Oswestry Disability Index.

resultsA total of 636 screws were implanted (222 pedicle screws, 190 cannulated and 224 cannulated screws with PMMA augmentation). At FU, we found significative differences between populations in terms of mechanical performances. We founded five cases of loosening; these were reported in solid screws group and in cannulated screws one. No mechanical failures were reported in cannulated screws with augmentation of PMMA. No rods breakage cases were reported.

conclusionAll stabilization methods showed good clinical results, but cannulated screws augmented with PMMA seem to provide better implant stability with the lowest rate of loosening. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsAgedAged, 80 and overBone CementsFemaleFracture Fixation, InternalHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleOsteoporotic FracturesPolymethyl MethacrylateProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureRadiographyRetrospective StudiesSpinal FracturesBone CementsPolymethyl MethacrylateCannulated screws with PMMA augmentationLong-term results in surgical treatment of vertebral fracturesScrew’s looseningVertebral fractures in osteoporosisVertebral fractures surgical treatment

Identifiers

PMID29761236
OpenAlexW2801610967

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.