ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2020
Comparison of the Pull-Out Strength between a Novel Micro-Dynamic Pedicle Screw and a Traditional Pedicle Screw in Lumbar Spine.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of screw tip design on screw anchorage: mechanical testing and numerical simulation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Anatomical and Biomechanical Stability of Single/Double Screw-Cancellous Bone Fixations of Regan-Morry Type III Ulnar Coronoid Fractures in Adults: CT Measurement and Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the strength of a novel micro-dynamic pedicle screw by comparing it to the traditional pedicle screw.
methodsForty-five lumbar vertebrae received a traditional pedicle screw on one side and a micro-dynamic pedicle screw on the other side as follows (traditional group vs micro-dynamic group): 15 vertebrae underwent instant pull-out testing; 15 vertebrae underwent 5000-cyclic fatigue loading testing; and 15 vertebrae underwent 10,000-cyclic fatigue loading testing and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanning. The peek pull-out force and normalized peek pull-out force after instant pull-out testing, 5000-cyclic and 10,000-cyclic fatigue loading testing were recorded to estimate the resistance of two types of screws. Bone mineral density was recorded to investigate the strength of the different screws in osteoporotic patients. And the semidiameter of the screw insertion area on micro-CT images after fatigue were compared to describe the performance between screw and bone surface.
resultsThe bone mineral density showed a weak correlation with peek pull-out force (r = 0.252, P = 0.024). The peek pull-out force of traditional pedicle screw after 10,000-cyclic fatigue loading were smaller than that of instant pull-out test in both osteoporotic (P = 0.017) and healthy group (P = 0.029), the peek pull-out force of micro-dynamic pedicle screw after 10,000-cyclic fatigue loading was smaller than that in instant pull-out test in osteoporotic group (P = 0.033), but no significant difference in healthy group (P = 0.853). The peek pull-out force in traditional group and micro-dynamic group underwent instant pull-out testing (P = 0.485), and pull-out testing after 5000-cyclic fatigue loading testing (P = 0.184) did not show significant difference. However, the peek pull-out force in micro-dynamic group underwent pull-test after 10,000-cyclic fatigue loading testing was significantly greater than that measured in traditional group (P = 0.005). The normalized peek pull-out force of traditional groups underwent instant pull-out testing, pull-out test after 5000-cyclic and 10,000-cyclic fatigue loading testing significantly decreased as the number of cycles increased (P < 0.001); meanwhile, the normalized peek pull-out force of micro-dynamic groups remained consistent regardless of the number of cycles (P = 0.133). The semidiameter after the fatigue loading test of the traditional screw insertion area was significantly larger than that of the micro-dynamic screw insertion area (P = 0.013).
conclusionThe novel micro-dynamic pedicle screw provides stronger fixation stability in high-cyclic fatigue loading and non-osteoporotic patients versus the traditional pedicle screw, but similar resistance in low-cycle fatigue testing and osteoporotic group vs the traditional pedicle screw.
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.