ArticleNeurospine2023
Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory to Pedicle-Based Dynamic Stabilization: An Analysis of 291 Patients.
Article in Neurospine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Expert consensus on the clinical application of cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws: results from a modified Delphi study.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Clinical study on freehand of bicortical sacral screw fixation with the assistance of torque measurement device.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Comparative Biomechanical Stability of the Fixation of Different Miniplates in Restorative Laminoplasty after Laminectomy: A Finite Element Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Screening patients requiring secondary lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a nationwide sample cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Diabetes-related Screw Loosening: The Distinction of Surgical Sites and the Relationship among Diabetes, Implant Stabilization and Clinical Outcomes.Orthopaedic surgery · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePedicle-based dynamic stabilization (DS) has gained popularity outside of America. Although pedicle screw (PS) loosening has always been a concern, it is reportedly innocuous. Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw is an emerging option with less invasiveness and similar effectiveness to PS in short-segment lumbar fusion. This study aimed to verify the use of CBT for DS by comparing the outcomes between pedicle- and CBT-based DS.
methodsConsecutive patients with lumbar spondylosis or low-grade spondylolisthesis who underwent 1- or 2-level DS between L3-5 with a minimum follow-up of 24 months were reviewed. Screw loosening was determined by computed tomography and the incidences were compared.
resultsA total of 291 patients who underwent Dynesys DS (235 pedicle- and 56 CBT-based, respectively) were compared. The demographics and preoperative conditions were similar. All the clinical outcomes improved at 24-month postoperation, while the CBT-based group had less operation time and blood loss than the pedicle-based group. The rates of screw loosening were lower in the CBT-based (5.4% per screw and 12.5% per patient) than the pedicle-based group (9% per screw and 26.4% per patient). Furthermore, there were no differences in the clinical outcomes and complication profiles.
conclusionThe CBT-based DS for 1- or 2-level lumbar degeneration demonstrated equivalent clinical improvement as the pedicle-based DS. The adaption of CBT-based screws for DS could be a less invasive approach (shorter operation time and less blood loss), with lower chances of screw loosening than the conventional PS-based DS.
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.