ArticleGlobal spine journal2023
A Biomechanical Study on Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation Augmented With Cement in Osteoporotic Spines.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bone cement-augmented vs. conventional pedicle screws for osteoporotic lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A Novel Calcium Phosphate-Based Nanocomposite for Augmentation of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA biomechanical study.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of cement-augmented cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw fixation.
methodsForty-nine CBT screws were inserted into lumbar vertebrae guided by three-dimensionally printed templates, and then injected with 0, .5, or 1.0 mL of polymethylmethacrylate. The screw placement accuracy, cement dispersion, and cement leakage rate were evaluated radiologically. Biomechanical tests were performed to measure the axial pull-out strength and torque value.
resultsOverall, 83.67% of the screws were inserted without pedicle perforation. In the 1.0 mL group, cement dispersed into the pedicle zone and formed a concentrated mass more often than in the .5 mL group, but not significantly more often (P > .05). The total cement leakage rate was 18.75%. Compared with the control group, the torque value was slightly higher in the .5 mL group (P = .735) and significantly higher in the 1.0 mL group (P = .026). However, there was no significant difference between the .5 and 1.0 mL groups (P = .431). The maximal pull-out force (Fmax) was increased by 52.85% and 72.73% in the .5 and 1.0 mL groups, respectively, compared with the control group (P < .05). However, the difference was not significant between the 2 cemented groups (P = .985).
conclusionsCement augmentation is a useful method for increasing CBT screw stability in osteoporotic spines. The cement injection volume is recommended to be 1 mL for each screw, and the cement should disperse into the vertebral body than the pedicle zones.
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.