Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33952236›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021

Comparison of three different screw trajectories in osteoporotic vertebrae: a biomechanical investigation.

J-S Jarvers, S Schleifenbaum, C Pfeifle, C Oefner, M Edel, N von der Höh, C-E Heyde

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Bone density optimized pedicle screw insertion.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J-S Jarvers *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. jan-sven.jarvers@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
S Schleifenbaum *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
C PfeifleDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
C OefnerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
M EdelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
N von der HöhDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
C-E HeydeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, Leipzig University, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Leipzig University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Pedicle ScrewsAgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaBone CementsCadaverCortical BoneHumansLumbar VertebraeBone CementsBiomechanical analysisCBTCement-augmented screwsMCOsteoporosisPatient-specific placement guideTT

Identifiers

PMID33952236
PMCPMC8101169
OpenAlexW3158375353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.