Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36484928›Full record

ArticleSpine deformity2023

Does number of rods matter? 4-, 5-, and 6-rods across a lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite element analysis.

Niloufar Shekouhi, Ardalan S Vosoughi, Vijay K Goel, Alekos A Theologis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Spine deformity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Biomechanics of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies and associated reconstructive instrumentation strategies: a comprehensive narrative review.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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Stabilization of L5 pedicle Subtraction osteotomies (PSO) with ≥ 6-rods and bilateral dual pelvic fixation with osseointegrative implants: surgical technique description and early postoperative outcomes.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
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Niloufar ShekouhiEngineering Center for Orthopedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Departments of Bioengineering and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Ardalan S VosoughiEngineering Center for Orthopedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Departments of Bioengineering and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Vijay K GoelEngineering Center for Orthopedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Departments of Bioengineering and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Alekos A TheologisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California-San Francisco (UCSF), 500 Parnassus Ave, MUW 3Rd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. alekos.theologis@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6170-2813
University of Toledo · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess biomechanics of a lumbar PSO stabilized with different multi-rod constructs (4-, 5-, 6-rods) using satellite and accessory rods.

methodsA validated spinopelvic finite element model with a L3 PSO was used to evaluate the following constructs: 2 primary rods T10-pelvis ("Control"), two satellite rods (4-rod), two satellite rods + one accessory rod (5-rod), or two satellite rods + two accessory rods (6-rod). Data recorded included: ROM T10-S1 and L2-L4, von Mises stresses on primary, satellite, and accessory rods, factor of safety yield stress, and force across the PSO surfaces. Percent differences relative to Control were calculated.

resultsCompared to Control, 4-rods increased PSO flexion and extension. Lower PSO ROMs were observed for 5- and 6-rods compared to 4-rods. However, 4-rod (348.6 N) and 5-rod (343.2 N) showed higher PSO forces than 2-rods (336 N) and 6-rods had lower PSO forces (324.2 N). 5- and 6-rods led to the lowest rod von Mises stresses across the PSO. 6-rod had the maximum factor of safety on the primary rods.

conclusionsIn this finite element analysis, 4-rods reduced stresses on primary rods across a lumbar PSO. Although increased rigidity afforded by 5- and 6-rods decreased rod stresses, it resulted in less load transfer to the anterior vertebral column (particularly for 6-rod), which may not be favorable for the healing of the anterior column. A balance between the construct's rigidity and anterior load sharing is essential.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisHumansOsteotomyBiomechanicsFinite element analysisMulti-rod constructsPedicle subtraction osteotomyPseudarthrosisRod fracture

Identifiers

PMID36484928
PMCPMC10147790
OpenAlexW4310920125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.