Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31129763›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2019

Supplementary delta-rod configurations provide superior stiffness and reduced rod stress compared to traditional multiple-rod configurations after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite element study.

Pedro Berjano, Ming Xu, Marco Damilano, Thomas Scholl, Claudio Lamartina, Michael Jekir, Fabio Galbusera

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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, 2019. 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
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Biomechanics of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies and associated reconstructive instrumentation strategies: a comprehensive narrative review.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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Biomechanical comparison of multi-rod constructs by satellite rod configurations (in-line vs. lateral) and screw types (monoaxial vs. polyaxial) spanning a lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): is there an optimal configuration?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 · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sublaminar bands in oncological spine surgery: illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Revision strategies for failed adult spinal deformity surgery.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 · 2020
    Article
  15. Revision surgery in distal junctional kyphosis.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 · 2020
    Review
  16. Revision surgery for tumors of the thoracic and lumbar spine: causes, prevention, and treatment strategy.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 · 2020
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pedro BerjanoIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Ming XuNuVasive, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. mingxuttu@gmail.com.
Marco DamilanoIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Thomas SchollNuVasive, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
Claudio LamartinaIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Michael JekirNuVasive, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
Fabio GalbuseraIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITNuVasive (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe biomechanical performance of conventional multi-rod configurations (satellite rods and accessory rods) in pedicle subtraction osteotomies has been previously studied in vitro and using finite element models (FEM). Delta and delta-cross rods are innovative multi-rod configurations where the rod bends were placed only in its proximal and distal extremities in order to obtain a dorsal translation of the central part of the rod respect to the most angulated area of the main rods. However, the biomechanical properties of the delta and delta-cross rods have not been investigated. This study used FEM to analyze the effect of delta-rod configurations on the stiffness and primary rod stress reduction in multiple-rod constructs after pedicle subtraction osteotomy.

methodsThe global range of motion in the spine and the magnitude and distribution of the von Mises stress in the rods were studied using a spine finite element model described previously. A follower load of 400 N along with moments of 7.5 N in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were tested on the spine model. Initial breakage was created on the rod based on the maximum stress location. The post-breakage models were tested under flexion.

resultsDelta and delta-cross rods reduced more range of motion (up to 45% more reduction) and reduced more primary rod stress than other previously tested rod configurations (up to 48% more reduction). After initial rod fracture occurred, delta and delta-cross rods also had less range of motion (up to 23.6% less) and less rod von Mises stress (up to 81.2% less) than other rod configurations did.

conclusionsDelta and delta-cross rods have better biomechanical performance than satellite rods and accessory rods in pedicle subtraction osteotomies in terms of construct stiffness and rod stress reduction. After the initial rod breakage occurred, the delta and delta-cross rods could minimize the loss of fixation, which have less rod stress and greater residual stiffness than other rod configurations do. Based on this FEA study, delta-rod configurations show more favorable biomechanical behavior than previously described multi-rod configurations. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

Internal FixatorsOsteotomyBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisHumansRange of Motion, ArticularSpineFinite element analysisMulti-rod fixationPedicle subtraction osteotomyPost-fractureRange of motionRod von Mises stress

Identifiers

PMID31129763
OpenAlexW2945092389

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.