Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33355707›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 Society2021

Can cavity-based pedicle screw augmentation decrease screw loosening? A biomechanical in vitro study.

Hans-Joachim Riesner, Thomas R Blattert, Renate Krezdorn, Simone Schädler, Hans-Joachim Wilke

Abstract 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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Hans-Joachim RiesnerGerman Armed Forces Hospital Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 40, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Thomas R BlattertSchwarzach Orthopedic Clinic·Spine Surgery & Traumatology, Dekan-Graf-Straße 2 - 6, 94374, Schwarzach, Germany.
Renate KrezdornInstitute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Centre Ulm, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstr. 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Simone SchädlerInstitute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Centre Ulm, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstr. 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Hans-Joachim WilkeInstitute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Centre Ulm, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstr. 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany. hans-joachim.wilke@uni-ulm.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6007-8844

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn an osteoporotic vertebral body, cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation could possibly be optimized by the creation of an initial cavity. The aim of this study is to compare three test groups with regard to their loosening characteristics under cyclic loading.

methodsEighteen human, osteoporotic spine segments were divided in three groups. Flexibility tests and cyclic loading tests were performed with an internal fixator. The screws were fixed after creation a cavity and with cement (cavity-augmented group), without cavity and with cement (augmented group), and without cavity and without cement (control group). Cyclic loading up to 100,000 cycles was applied with a complex loading protocol. Screw loosening was measured with flexibility tests after implantation and after cyclic loading. Cement distribution was visualized from CT scans.

resultsIn all groups, range of motion increased during cyclic loading, representing significant screw loosening after 100,000 cycles. In both augmented groups, screw loosening was less pronounced than in the control group. The cavity-augmented group showed only a slight tendency of screw loosening, but with smaller variations compared to both other groups. This may be explained with a trend for a more equal and homogeneous cement volume around each tip for the cavity-augmented group.

conclusionThis study demonstrated that creating a cavity may allow a more equal fixation of all pedicle screws with slight reduction of loosening. However, augmentation only through a cannulated screw is almost equivalent, if care is taken that enough cement volume can be pushed out around the tip of the screw.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone CementsCadaverHumansLumbar VertebraeSpineBone CementsCement augmentationCyclic testingIn vitro experimentOsteoporotic spinePedicle screw loosening

Identifiers

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.