ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2022
Expandable pedicle screw may have better fixation than normal pedicle screw: preclinical investigation on instrumented L4-L5 vertebrae based on various physiological movements.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Management of Adult Spinal Deformity Patients with Osteoporosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Oblique lateral interbody fusion with internal fixations in the treatment for cross-segment degenerative lumbar spine disease (L2-3 and L4-5) finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Screw Osteointegration-Increasing Biomechanical Resistance to Pull-Out Effect.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluating the contact anatomy and contact bone volume of spinal screws using a novel drilled surface image.PloS one · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Lumbar spine fracture is typically treated by means of screw fixation, the primary aim of which is to reduce fracture by achieving bony union such that the spinal anatomy is restored. Pedicle screw fixation has certain advantages over conventional vertebral screws, e.g. 3-column fixation and improved surgical alignment. However, expandable pedicle screws have been reported to impart better anchorage as compared to conventional pedicle screws, both in case of healthy and osteoporotic bone. The clinical studies notwithstanding, there is a paucity of preclinical investigations on expandable pedicle screws used on lumbar vertebrae. By employing anatomically viable FE models, the present study intended to estimate stress-strain fields of a functional spinal unit (FSU) of intact L4-L5 vertebra and to further compare the same with FSUs instrumented with normal and expandable pedicle screws under different physiological loading condition. The various physiological loading regimes appeared to have significant influence on the overall load transfer in the L4-L5 vertebrae. The expandable pedicle screw predicted marginally improved anchorage as compared to the normal pedicle screws, with more contact area with the bone resulting in higher stresses (~ 1.6 MPa) and high strain at the contact sites. This is indicative of improved stability albeit having marginally greater risk of screw pullout. Greater area (15-80%) with peak stresses at the bone-screw interfaces also indicates lesser degree of stress shielding. Thus, stability aside, one may expect to have lower loosening issues too with the use of expandable pedicle screws.
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.