ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021
Fenestrated Pedicle Screws in Spinal Oncology: Technique and Comparative Retrospective Analysis.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Avoid and Handle Problems in the Placement of Cement-Augmented Fenestrated Percutaneous Pedicle Screws?Neurosurgery practice · 2024Article
- Surgical Site Infection After Polymethyl Methacrylate Pedicle Screw Augmentation in Osteoporotic Spinal Vertebrae: A Series of 537 Cases.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Comparing the efficacy and safety of cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screws and conventional pedicle screw in surgery for spinal metastases: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Translational cancer research · 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
backgroundThe use of spinal stabilization with decompression has been shown to improve survival, spinal stability, and ambulatory status in patients with metastatic spinal tumors. However, the poor bone quality typically seen in these patients can prevent adequate stabilization. Fenestrated pedicle screws permit augmented fixation via injection of bone cement into the vertebral body upon screw placement, potentially mitigating the difficulties in achieving adequate stabilization in these patients.
objectiveTo compare surgical outcomes of posterior spinal fusion in patients with cancerous spinal lesions between polymethyl methacrylate cement-augmented fenestrated screws and standard pedicle screws.
methodsA total of 19 consecutive patients with cancerous spinal lesions receiving posterior spinal fusion (PSF) with pedicle screws from a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed for demographic information, comorbidities, surgical parameters, and outcomes.
resultsTen patients underwent PSF with cement augmentation, whereas 9 underwent standard PSF. There was no significant difference in demographics, comorbidities, or surgical characteristics. Operative time was significantly greater in the cement-augmented group (302 ± 100 minutes vs 203 ± 55 minutes;
conclusionsFenestrated screws confer similar risk profiles as nonfenestrated screws for posterior spinal fusion in patients with spinal cancer. However, fenestrated screws may affect operative time, radiation exposure, and impose risk of cement extravasation. Cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screws may be a viable option for patients with poor bone quality associated with metastatic disease without significantly increased rates of surgical complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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.