ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023
Residual motion of cortical versus pedicle screw constructs after decompression, interbody fusion and cross-link augmentation.
Article 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the residual range of motion (ROM) of cortical screw (CS) versus pedicle screw (PS) instrumented lumbar segments and the additional effect of transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and cross-link (CL) augmentation.
methodsROM of thirty-five human cadaver lumbar segments in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression (AC) was recorded. After instrumenting the segments with PS (n = 17) and CS (n = 18), ROM in relation to the uninstrumented segments was evaluated without and with CL augmentation before and after decompression and TLIF.
resultsCS and PS instrumentations both significantly reduced ROM in all loading directions, except AC. In undecompressed segments, a significantly lower relative (and absolute) reduction of motion in LB was found with CS 61% (absolute 3.3°) as compared to PS 71% (4.0°; p = 0.048). FE, AR, AS, LS, and AC values were similar between CS and PS instrumented segments without interbody fusion. After decompression and TLIF insertion, no difference between CS and PS was found in LB and neither in any other loading direction. CL augmentation did not diminish differences in LB between CS and PS in the undecompressed state but led to an additional small AR reduction of 11% (0.15°) in CS and 7% (0.05°) in PS instrumentation.
conclusionSimilar residual motion is found with CS and PS instrumentation, except of slightly, but significantly inferior reduction of ROM in LB with CS. Differences between CS and PS in diminish with TLIF but not with CL augmentation.
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.