ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2021
Biomechanical comparison of pullout strengths of six pedicle screws with different thread designs.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Orthopedic Biomaterials in the Clinical Reconstruction of Osteoporotic Atlantoaxial Injuries: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Risk factors for pedicle screw loosening: a comprehensive review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Review
- Biomechanical Properties of Novel Porous Scaffold Core and Hollow Lateral Hole Pedicle Screws: A Comparative Study in Bama Pigs.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Morphology analysis of the C2 pediculoisthmic component and feasibility of safe C2 pedicle screw placement: comparison of multiplanar reconstruction versus traditional radiographic methods.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Biomechanical study of two-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion with different types of lateral instrumentation: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Influence of thread design on anchorage of pedicle screws in cancellous bone: an experimental and analytical analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to assess the pullout strength of six different pedicle screw thread patterns. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 36 sheep spines were divided into six groups including six spines in each group: fully threaded cortical (Type A), fully threaded spongeous (Type B), fully cortical threads in the proximal half and fully spongeous threads in the distal half (Type C), fully spongeous threads in the proximal half and fully cortical threads in the distal half (Type D), unthreaded proximal half with fully spongeous threads in the distal half (Type E), and unthreaded proximal half with fully cortical threads in the distal half (Type F). The axial compression-traction machine was used for biomechanical testing at a pullout rate of 1 mm/min.
resultsThe mean values of pullout strength of the groups A, B, C, D, E, and F were 1112±7.52 N, 986±8.34 N, 646±3.88 N, 676±7.16 N, 609±9.52 N, and 769±6.49 N, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the screw groups A and B, C, D, E and F (p=0.036, p=0.028, p=0.04, p=0.039, and p=0.046, respectively). A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups B versus C and E (p=0.037 and p=0.021, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups B versus D and F (p=0.35 and p=0.61, respectively).
conclusionFully threaded cortical pedicular screw design exhibited the strongest bone grasp compared to other thread designs. Further studies should be conducted in multidirectional force pattern on human spine to assess the six screw thread designs in a closer real-life setting simulation model.
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.