ArticleScientific reports2023
Biomechanical evaluation of position and bicortical fixation of anterior lateral vertebral screws in a porcine model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of pedicle screw fixation strength under craniocaudal cyclic load: comparison of various models trained on quantitative CT based finite element analysis.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 · 2026Article
- A novel personalized homogenous finite element model to predict the pull-out strength of cancellous bone screws.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of a novel minimally invasive pedicle bone cement screw applied to the treatment of Kümmel's disease in porcine vertebrae.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although an anterior approach with anterior lateral screw fixation has been developed for stabilizing the thoracolumbar spine clinically, screw loosening still occurs. In this novel in vitro study, we attempted to elucidate the optimal screw position in the lateral lumbar vertebra and the effect of bicortical fixation. A total of 72 fresh-frozen lumbar vertebrae from L1-6 were harvested from 12 mature pigs and randomly assigned to two modalities: bicortical fixation (n = 36) and unicortical fixation (n = 36). Six groups of screw positions in the lateral vertebral body in each modality were designated as central-anterior, central-middle, central-posterior, lower-anterior, lower-middle, and lower- posterior; 6 specimens were used in each group. The correlations between screw fixation modalities, screw positions and axial pullout strength were analyzed. An appropriate screw trajectory and insertional depth were confirmed using axial and sagittal X-ray imaging prior to pullout testing. In both bicortical and unicortical fixation modalities, the screw pullout force was significantly higher in the posterior or middle position than in the anterior position (p < 0.05), and there was no significant differences between the central and lower positions. The maximal pullout forces from the same screw positions in unicortical fixation modalities were all significantly lower, decreases that ranged from 32.7 to 74%, than those in bicortical fixation modalities. Our study using porcine vertebrae showed that screws in the middle or posterior position of the lateral vertebral body had a higher pullout performance than those in the anterior position. Posteriorly positioned lateral vertebral screws with unicortical fixation provided better stability than anteriorly positioned screws with bicortical fixation.
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.