ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2020
Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation Combined with Facet Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Recent advancement in finite element analysis of spinal interbody cages: A review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe create a new S1 cortical screw trajectory technique using 3D reconstruction and the finite element (FE) method to provide a more reliable theoretical basis for clinical practices and to advance internal fixation technology for treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients (aged from 40 to 70 years) who needed intervertebral fusion surgery between August 2016 and August 2017. Data of patients with lumbosacral lesions was scanned and measured by 64-row spiral CT, and were then transmitted to the GE-AW4.3 post-processing system for 3D reconstruction. The trajectories of the three different screws were simulated by FE software and processed by mimics software to simulate the screw path: traditional PS fixation (Model A); traditional cortical screw (Model B); and new cortical screw (Model C). The CT value of the bone around the screw canal was recorded. Biomechanical effects of the three screws were analyzed and compared.
resultsThe displacement of flexion and extension, the vertebral body stress of right torsion, and the cage stress of flexion showed no significant differences among the three models (P > 0.05). The results demonstrated that cortical screws exceeded pedicle screws in stability and pullout force. Models B and C showed higher vertebral displacement in left bending (0.41 and 0.31 mm) and right bending (0.58 and 0.40 mm), lower vertebral body stress on extension (48.37 and 38.92 MPa), left bending (0.76 and 0.74 mm) and right bending (0.50 and 0.53 mm), and higher cage stress on left bending (162.19 and 160.63 MPa), right bending (150.02 and 150.05 MPa), left torsion (158.45 and 146.27 MPa) and right torsion (167.33 and 171.15 MPa) (all P < 0.05) compared to model A. Compared to Model B, Model C had higher displacement of left and right torsion, lower pressure in extension and flexion, and lower stress on cages in extension (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe new cortical screw insertion method has similar effects to traditional cortical screw fixation. However, it demonstrated advantages in promoting lumbosacral interbody fusion, which protects vessels and nerves.
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.