ArticleGlobal spine journal2023
Safety and Efficacy of All-In-One Percutaneous Pedicle Screw System.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world outcomes of minimally invasive posterior thoracic and lumbar spine fusion surgery versus open surgery in the Finnish Spine Registry.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Safety of Pedicle Screw Insertion Using Novel Intraoperative Computed Tomography Navigation System for Spinal Fusion Surgery.Spine surgery and related research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective study of the prospectively collected outcomes data.
objectiveThe indications for PPS placement during minimally invasive spine stabilization (MISt) procedures have increased in recent years. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have documented the outcomes of PPS insertion using the all-in-one PPS system. This study compared the conventional methods and the use of all-in-one percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) system with respect to the speed and accuracy of PPS placement. We also determined the advantages associated with the use of the all-in-one PPS system.
methodsWe evaluated 54 patients who underwent PPS insertion using the conventional method and the all-in-one PPS system during MISt procedures. We also assessed the number of implanted PPSs, the time taken to implant PPSs, and the accuracy of PPS placement based on postoperative computed tomography images.
resultsA total of 254 PPSs were inserted (126 using the conventional method and 128 using the all-in-one PPS system). The PPS insertion time with the all-in-one PPS system (mean, 25.3 ± 9.1 s) was significantly shorter than that using the conventional method (mean, 63.1 ± 13.0 s;
conclusionsPPS placement using the all-in-one PPS system is as safe as conventional methods and has the potential to save the surgical time of MISt procedures.
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.