Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35380271›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Beyond the pedicle screw-a patent review.

Esther P de Kater, Aimée Sakes, Erik Edström, Adrian Elmi-Terander, Gerald Kraan, Paul Breedveld

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation versus stress endplate augmentation and anterolateral screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in osteoporotic patients.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Esther P de KaterDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands. E.p.dekater@tudelft.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5342-6721
Aimée SakesDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4323-884X
Erik EdströmDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8781-1169
Adrian Elmi-TeranderDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3776-6136
Gerald KraanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Reinier HAGA Orthopaedic Centre, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Paul BreedveldDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7235-1657
Delft University of Technology · NLKarolinska University Hospital · SEHaga Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review provides an overview of the patent literature on posteriorly placed intrapedicular bone anchors. Conventional pedicle screws are the gold standard to create a fixation in the vertebra for spinal fusion surgery but may lack fixation strength, especially in osteoporotic bone. The ageing population demands new bone anchors that have an increased fixation strength, that can be placed safely, and, if necessary, can be removed without damaging the surrounding tissue.

methodsThe patent search was conducted using a classification search in the Espacenet patent database. Only patents with a Cooperative Patent Classification of A61B17/70 or A61B17/7001 concerning spinal positioners and stabilizers were eligible for inclusion. The search query resulted in the identification of 731 patents. Based on preset inclusion criteria, a total of 56 unique patents on different anchoring methods were included, reviewed and categorized in this study.

resultsFive unique fixation methods were identified; (1) anchors that use threading, (2) anchors that utilize a curved path through the vertebra, (3) anchors that (partly) expand, (4) anchors that use cement and (5) anchors that are designed to initiate bone ingrowth. Of the anchor designs included in this study, eight had a corresponding commercial product, six of which were evaluated in clinical trials.

conclusionThis review provides insights into worldwide patented intrapedicular bone anchors that aim to increase the fixation strength compared to the conventional pedicle screw. The identified anchoring methods and their working principles can be used for clinical decision-making and as a source of inspiration when designing novel bone anchors.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisPedicle ScrewsSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaBone CementsHumansLumbar VertebraeBone CementsBone anchorFusionMechanical designOrthopaedic surgeryPedicle screwSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID35380271
OpenAlexW4226239302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.