Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31188908›Full record

ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2019

Clinical evaluation of a bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw augmented with polymethylmethacrylate: 128 osteoporotic patients with 42 months of follow-up.

Zhengdong Wang, Yaoyao Liu, Zhigang Rong, Cheng Wang, Xun Liu, Fei Zhang, Zehua Zhang, Jianzhong Xu, Fei Dai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Location of pedicle screw hold in relation to bone quality and loads.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Ceramic Biologics for Bony Fusion-a Journey from First to Third Generations.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2020
    Review
  7. 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

9 authors.

Zhengdong WangDepartment of Orthopedics, National & Regional United Engineering Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, 400038, Chongqing, China.
Yaoyao LiuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Daping Hospital, 400410, Chongqing, China.
Zhigang RongDepartment of Orthopedics, National & Regional United Engineering Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, 400038, Chongqing, China.
Cheng WangDepartment of Orthopedics, National & Regional United Engineering Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, 400038, Chongqing, China.
Xun LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, National & Regional United Engineering Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, 400038, Chongqing, China.
Fei ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics, General Hospital of Xin Jiang Military Region, 830000, Xinjiang, China.
Zehua ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, National & Regional United Engineering Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, 400038, Chongqing, China.
Jianzhong XuDepartment of Orthopedics, National & Regional United Engineering Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, 400038, Chongqing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0434-5148
Fei DaiDepartment of Orthopedics, National & Regional United Engineering Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, 400038, Chongqing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7651-8549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw augmented with polymethylmethacrylate in osteoporotic spinal surgery.

methodsThis study included 128 patients with osteoporosis (BMD T-score -3.2±1.9; range, -5.4 to -2.5) who underwent spinal decompression and instrumentation with a polymethylmethacrylate-augmented bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw. Postoperative Visual Analogue Scale scores and the Oswestry Disability Index were compared with preoperative values. Postoperative plain radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans were performed immediately after surgery; at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; and annually thereafter.

resultsThe mean follow-up time was 42.4±13.4 months (range, 23 to 71 months). A total of 418 polymethylmethacrylate-augmented bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws were used. Cement extravasations were detected in 27 bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws (6.46%), mainly in cases of vertebral fracture, without any clinical sequela. The postoperative low back and lower limb Visual Analogue Scale scores were significantly reduced compared with the preoperative scores (<0.01), and similar results were noted for the Oswestry Disability Index score (p<0.01). No significant screw migration was noted at the final follow-up relative to immediately after surgery (p<0.01). All cases achieved successful bone fusion, and no case required revision. No infection or blood clots occurred after surgery.

conclusionsThe polymethylmethacrylate-augmented bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw is safe and effective for use in osteoporotic patients who require spinal instrumentation.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBone CementsCementoplastyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisPedicle ScrewsPolymethyl MethacrylatePostoperative ComplicationsSpinal FracturesBone CementsPolymethyl Methacrylate

Identifiers

PMID31188908
PMCPMC6537661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.