ArticleScientific reports2021
Restricted cement augmentation in unstable geriatric midthoracic fractures treated by long-segmental posterior stabilization leads to a comparable construct stability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Current surgical treatment concepts for traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine with osteoporotic bone substance].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Cementation strategies in the osteoporotic, metastatic, or ankylosing thoracolumbar spine in older adults: Cement-associated complications and implant failure.Brain & spine · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study is to compare the construct stability of long segmental dorsal stabilization in unstable midthoracic osteoporotic fractures with complete pedicle screw cement augmentation (ComPSCA) versus restricted pedicle screw cement augmentation (ResPSCA) of the most cranial and caudal pedicle screws under cyclic loading. Twelve fresh frozen human cadaveric specimens (Th4-Th10) from individuals aged 65 years and older were tested in a biomechanical cadaver study. All specimens received a DEXA scan and computer tomography (CT) scan prior to testing. All specimens were matched into pairs. These pairs were randomized into the ComPSCA group and ResPSCA group. An unstable Th7 fracture was simulated. Periodic bending in flexion direction with a torque of 2.5 Nm and 25,000 cycles was applied. Markers were applied to the vertebral bodies to measure segmental movement. After testing, a CT scan of all specimens was performed. The mean age of the specimens was 87.8 years (range 74-101). The mean T-score was - 3.6 (range - 1.2 to - 5.3). Implant failure was visible in three specimens, two of the ComPSCA group and one of the ResPSCA group, affecting only one pedicle screw in each case. Slightly higher segmental movement could be evaluated in these three specimens. No further statistically significant differences were observed between the study groups. The construct stability under cyclic loading in flexion direction of long segmental posterior stabilization of an unstable osteoporotic midthoracic fracture using ResPSCA seems to be comparable to ComPSCA.
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.