ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Comparison of three different screw trajectories in osteoporotic vertebrae: a biomechanical investigation.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a Computer-Assisted Screw Trajectory Planning Model Based on Iterative Closest Point Registration and Weighted K-Nearest Neighbors Algorithms for Cortical Bone and Pedicle Screw Techniques.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Are Patient-Specific 3-Dimensionally Printed Instrumentations a Viable Solution to Safe Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Placement? A Systematic Review.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- How Patient-Specific Guides Can Ease the Learning Curve of Cortical Bone Trajectory: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Analysis of biomechanical load cases for the investigation of pedicle screws ASTM F1717 vs. Toggling.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Current Applications and Future Directions of Technologies Used in Adult Deformity Surgery for Personalized Alignment: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Biomechanical analysis of trivergent, a new posterior lumbar spinal fixation system.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Does Malpositioning of Pedicle Screws Affect Biomechanical Stability in a Novel Quasistatic Test Setup?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Autonomous Establishment of CT-Independent Sections to Obtain Optimum Pedicle-Screw Axis in Direction, Length, and Safety Margin.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2025Article
- Biomechanical impact of cortical bone vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectories: a finite element study on lumbar spinal instrumentation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- The Safety and Effectiveness of Multi-Segment Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis with Stenosis Among the Elderly: Minimum 5-year Follow-up Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of Deep Learning Preoperative Planning Software for Automatic Lumbosacral Screw Selection Using Computed Tomography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Side specific differences of Hounsfield-Units in the osteoporotic lumbar spine.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Biportal endoscopic-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement and lumbar interbody fusion.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- [Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Supraspinous ligament arc tangent guided freehand thoracic pedicle screw insertion technique: high parallelism between screws and upper endplate.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Bone density optimized pedicle screw insertion.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- CT-Navigated Spinal Instrumentations-Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Screw Placement Accuracy in Relation to a Screw Trajectory Plan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPedicle screw insertion in osteoporotic patients is challenging. Achieving more screw-cortical bone purchase and invasiveness minimization, the cortical bone trajectory and the midline cortical techniques represent alternatives to traditional pedicle screws. This study compares the fatigue behavior and fixation strength of the cement-augmented traditional trajectory (TT), the cortical bone trajectory (CBT), and the midline cortical (MC).
methodsTen human cadaveric spine specimens (L1 - L5) were examined. The average age was 86.3 ± 7.2 years. CT scans were provided for preoperative planning. CBT and MC were implanted by using the patient-specific 3D-printed placement guide (MySpine®, Medacta International), TT were implanted freehand. All ten cadaveric specimens were randomized to group A (CBT vs. MC) or group B (MC vs. TT). Each screw was loaded for 10,000 cycles. The failure criterion was doubling of the initial screw displacement resulting from the compressive force (60 N) at the first cycle, the stop criterion was a doubling of the initial screw displacement. After dynamic testing, screws were pulled out axially at 5 mm/min to determine their remaining fixation strength.
resultsThe mean pull-out forces did not differ significantly. Concerning the fatigue performance, only one out of ten MC of group A failed prematurely due to loosening after 1500 cycles (L3). Five CBT already loosened during the first 500 cycles. The mean displacement was always lower in the MC. In group B, all TT showed no signs of failure or loosening. Three MC failed already after 26 cycles, 1510 cycles or 2144 cycles. The TT showed always a lower mean displacement. In the subsequent pull-out tests, the remaining mean fixation strength of the MC (449.6 ± 298.9 N) was slightly higher compared to the mean pull-out force of the CBT (401.2 ± 261.4 N). However, MC (714.5 ± 488.0 N) were inferior to TT (990.2 ± 451.9 N).
conclusionThe current study demonstrated that cement-augmented TT have the best fatigue and pull-out characteristics in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae, followed by the MC and CBT. MC represent a promising alternative in osteoporotic bone if cement augmentation should be avoided. Using the patient-specific placement guide contributes to the improvement of screws' biomechanical properties.
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.