SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019
Comparison of outcomes between cortical screws and traditional pedicle screws for lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw instrumentation in spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Complication, fusion, and revision rate in the lumbar cortical bone trajectory and pedicle screw fixation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of a Three-Dimensional Printed Guide and a Polyoxymethylene Thermoplastic Regulator for Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Patients with Thoracolumbar Fracture.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Trial
- Impact of robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw placement on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF): a retrospective study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Outcomes after Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw versus Traditional Pedicle Screw in Single-Level Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Spine surgery and related research · 2025Review
- Finite element analysis of biomechanical investigation on diverse internal fixation techniques in oblique lumbar interbody fusion.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Expert consensus on the clinical application of cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws: results from a modified Delphi study.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- [Comparison of Clinical Effects of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbar Fusion].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2024Article
- Comprehensive comparison of three techniques for the treatment of adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- A parametric investigation on traditional and cortical bone trajectory screws for transpedicular fixation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Cortical Trajectory Screw Fixation in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Review of the Existing Literature.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
- Placement of Unilateral Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Previously Instrumented Pedicle without Removal of Existing Hardware for Adjacent Segment Disease.Case reports in orthopedics · 2021Article
- Letter to the Editor: Postoperative Low Back Pain after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery Using Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws.Asian spine journal · 2020Article
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
Abstract
purposeThe clinical outcomes of using a cortical screw (CS) for lumbar interbody fusion were evaluated by comparison with conventional pedicle screw (PS) fixation.
methodsAll of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases recently as 18 March 2019, were included. All outcomes were analyzed by using Review Manager 5.3.
resultsTwelve studies were included with a total of 835 patients, and two of the studies were randomized controlled trials. The outcomes of the meta-analysis indicated that the use of CS fixation for lumbar interbody fusion was better than conventional PS fixation in regard to operating time (p = 0.02), intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.00001), length of stay (p = 0.02), incidence of complications (p = 0.02), adjacent segmental disease (ASD) incidence (p = 0.03), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (p = 0.03). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale, and intervertebral fusion rate (all p > 0.05) between the CS fixation group and the PS fixation group.
conclusionsBased on this systematic review and meta-analysis, our outcomes indicated that both CS and conventional PS can result in good postoperative outcomes in lumbar interbody fusion. No significant differences were found in the back and leg pain VAS, JOA scale, and intervertebral fusion rate. However, CS fixation is superior to PS fixation in the following measures: operating time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, incidence of complications, ASD incidence, and ODI.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number is CRD 42019132226 .
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.