ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
A parametric investigation on traditional and cortical bone trajectory screws for transpedicular fixation.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. 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.
- Risk factors for screw loosening following lumbar interbody fusion surgery in degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- The Safety and Effectiveness of Multi-Segment Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis with Stenosis Among the Elderly: Minimum 5-year Follow-up Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2025Article
- [Comparison of Clinical Effects of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbar Fusion].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany studies have been conducted to compare traditional trajectory (TT) and cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws; however, how screw parameters affect the biomechanical properties of TT and CBT screws, and so their efficacy remains to be investigated.
methodsA finite element model was used to simulate screws with different trajectories, diameters, and lengths. Responses for implant and tissues at the adjacent and fixed segments were used as the comparison indices. The contact lengths and spanning areas of the inserted screws were defined and compared across the varieties.
resultsThe trajectory and diameter had a greater impact on the responses from the implant and tissues than the length. The CBT has shorter length than the TT; however, the contact length and supporting area of the CBT within the cortical bone were 19.6%. and 14.5% higher than those of the TT, respectively. Overall, the TT and CBT were equally effective at stabilizing the instrumented segment, except for bending and rotation. The CBT experienced less adjacent segment compensations than the TT. With the same diameter and length, the TT was considerably less stressed than the CBT, especially for flexion and extension.
conclusionsThe CBT may provide less stress at adjacent segments compared with the TT. The CBT may provide more stiffer in osteoporotic segments than the TT due to greater contact with cortical bone and a wider supporting base between the paired screws. However, both entry point and insertion trajectory of the CBT should be carefully executed to avoid vertebral breach and ensure a stable cone-screw purchase.
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.