ArticleGlobal spine journal2023
Biomechanical Comparison of Different Numbers and Configurations of Cross-Links in Long-Segment Spinal Fixation-An Experimental Study in a Porcine Model.
Article in Global spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screw fixation strength among three different screw trajectories using single vertebrae and one-level functional spinal unit.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designBiomechanical study.
objectiveCross-links are a type of common clinical spinal instrumentation. However, the effects of the position and number of cross-links have never been investigated in long-segment spinal fixation, and the variables have not been optimized. We conducted an in vitro biomechanical study by using a porcine long-segment spinal model with 5 different crosslink configurations to determine the optimal construct for clinical practice.
methodsFive modalities with paired segmental screws from T15-L5 were tested in 20 porcine spines. The spines without cross-links composed the control group, Group A; those with a single cross-link from L2-3 composed Group B; those with 2 cross-links from L1-2 and L3-4 composed Group C; those with 2 cross-links from T15-L1 and L4-5 composed Group D; and those with 3 cross-links from T15-L1, L2-3 and L4-5 composed Group E. Spinal stiffnesses in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were compared among 5 different cross-link configurations in 5-level porcine spinal units.
resultsFlexional, extensional and lateral bending stiffnesses did not significantly change with an increasing number of cross-links or positions in the construct. Axial stiffness was significantly increased with 2 cross-links compared to one (
conclusionsTwo cross-links individually placed proximal and distal from the center of a construct is an optimal and efficient configuration to achieve biomechanical stability in non-rigid lumbar spines undergoing long-level fixation.
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.