ArticleSovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine2021
Augmentation of Pedicle Screws Using Bone Grafting in Patients with Spinal Osteoporosis.
Article in Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel UHMWPE anchor for improving the pullout resistance of pedicle screws.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
Materials and Methods: This prospective non-randomized study included 164 patients with degenerative pathologies or traumatic injuries of the lumbar spine and transitional thoracolumbar segments; 153 of the operated patients were followed up for 18 months. In these patients, radiodensity of the cancellous bone tissue was below 110 HU by the Hounsfield scale. Patients with degenerative spinal disorders underwent pedicle screw fixation using transforaminal interbody fusion; patients with traumatic spinal injuries underwent intermediate pedicle screw fixation, and those with a loss of vertebral body height by >50% underwent anterior fusion.The patients were divided into three groups: in group 1 (n=39), bone tissue augmentation was performed using PMMA; in group 2 (n=21), augmentation was done with bone chips; in group 3 (n=93), no augmentation was performed (control group). The follow-up period was 12 months; cases with fixator breakage or loosening were recorded. Results: After augmentation with PMMA, 11 cases (28.2%) of fixator destabilization were detected. With bone chips, fixator instability developed in 2 patients (9.5%) only, whereas in patients operated without augmentation, the instability was observed in 43 cases (46.2%). With PMMA augmentation, the incidence rate of fixator destabilization did not significantly differ from that in the control group (p=0.0801), while the use of bone chips resulted in a statistically significant decrease of this index compared to the control group (p=0.0023). A logistic regression analysis confirmed the superiority of the developed method over the PMMA-based vertebral augmentation. Conclusion: The use of bone chips for vertebral augmentation provides a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of pedicle screw fixator destabilization in the post-operative period. By reducing the risk of proximal loosening and eliminating the risk of bone cement drainage into the spinal canal and vascular bed, the proposed method may become especially effective in patients with impaired bone density.
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.