ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
A new tool in percutaneous anterior odontoid screw fixation.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous anterior odontoid screw fixation for odontoid fractures remains challenging due to the complex anatomy of the craniocervical junction. We designed a new guide instrument to help with the placement of guide wire, which have achieved satisfying surgical results. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this new tool in percutaneous anterior odontoid screw fixation.
methodsTwenty-nine patients with odontoid fracture were retrospectively evaluated. All patients underwent percutaneous anterior odontoid screw fixation with the traditional guide instrument (n = 13) or the new guide instrument we designed (n = 16). The following clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups: operation time, radiograph times, incision length, blood loss, postoperative hospitalization, postoperative complications, bony union, fixation failure, and reoperation. Radiographs or CT scans were performed at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery.
resultsThere were no significant differences in preoperative demographic data between the two groups. The operation time (56.62 ± 8.32 Vs 49.63 ± 7.47, P = 0.025) and radiograph times (26.54 ± 6.94 Vs 20.50 ± 5.02, P = 0.011) of the designed guide instrument group were significantly lower than those of the traditional guide instrument group. There were no significant differences in incision length (16.08 ± 3.07 Vs 15.69 ± 2.73, P = 0.720), blood loss (16.08 ± 4.96 Vs 17.88 ± 5.98, P = 0.393), postoperative hospitalization (7.15 ± 1.91 Vs 6.88 ± 2.36, P = 0.734), postoperative complications (7.7% Vs 12.5%, P = 1), and bony union (92.3% Vs 93.8%, P = 1) between the two groups. No fixation failure or reoperation occurred in either group.
conclusionsThe top of our designed guide instrument is a wedge-shaped tip with 30° inclination, which has a large contact area with the anterior surface of the cervical vertebra. According to our retrospective study, the guide instrument can reduce the operation time and radiograph times. It has potential clinical value, which needs further testing with a higher level of research design.
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.