ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2021
Revision pedicle screws with impaction bone grafting: a case series.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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.
- Pedicle Screw Loosening After Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery and an Analytical Review of Recurrent Loosening: Based on Revision Surgery Experience.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Fusion outcomes of structural bone allograft in cervical and lumbar spine surgery: analysis of 147 patients over a decade of follow-up.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- An Extended Follow-up of Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPedicle screw fixation in spinal constructs can be subject to failure requiring revision surgery. In cases of aseptic loosening various salvage techniques have been described. Revision screws augmented with cement have become popular but are not without risks. Larger diameter screws are often used but result in reducing bone stock or expanding the pedicles. We present a novel technique of pedicle screw revision by impaction bone allografting and a case series.
methodsThe failed screws are removed. The screw track is probed to check its integrity. Milled bone allograft is funneled into the screw hole and sequentially impacted, before insertion of a replacement screw. We report a case series and describe a single case where this method has been used. Information was gathered from the electronic patient record in our hospital.
resultsTen screws were revised in 7 patients. Mean age at first surgery was 60.86 (48-76) years. Average time between first surgery and revision was 12.6 (4.7-49.9) months. Average follow-up was 26.2 (5.7-62.2) months and no screws showed any signs of loosening.
conclusionsImpaction grafting with bone allograft is a technique for pedicle screw salvage that can be used safely and effectively as an alternative to cemented screws, when pedicle screws have failed by aseptic loosening. It avoids the risks associated with cemented screws and in our series was successful.
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.