ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Second-generation bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws for osteoporosis: biomechanical and finite element analyses.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiomechanical and finite element analyses were performed to investigate the efficacy of second-generation bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws (CICPS) in osteoporosis.
methodsThis study used the biomechanical test module of polyurethane to simulate osteoporotic cancellous bone. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement was used to anchor the pedicle screws in the module. The specimens were divided into two groups for the mechanical tests: the experimental group (second-generation CICPS) and control group (first-generation CICPS). Safety was evaluated using maximum shear force, static bending, and dynamic bending tests. Biomechanical stability evaluations included the maximum axial pullout force and rotary torque tests. X-ray imaging and computed tomography were used to evaluate the distribution of bone cement 24 h after PMMA injection, and stress distribution at the screw fracture and screw-cement-bone interface was assessed using finite element analysis.
resultsMechanical testing revealed that the experimental group (349.8 ± 28.6 N) had a higher maximum axial pullout force than the control group (277.3 ± 8.6 N; P < 0.05). The bending moments of the experimental group (128.5 ± 9.08 N) were comparable to those of the control group (113.4 ± 20.9 N; P > 0.05). The screw-in and spin-out torques of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group (spin-in, 0.793 ± 0.015 vs. 0.577 ± 0.062 N, P < 0.01; spin-out, 0.764 ± 0.027 vs. 0.612 ± 0.049 N, P < 0.01). Bone cement was mainly distributed at the front three-fifths of the screw in both groups, but the distribution was more uniform in the experimental group than in the control group. After pullout, the bone cement was closely connected to the screw, without loosening or fragmentation. In the finite element analysis, stress on the second-generation CICPS was concentrated at the proximal screw outlet, whereas stress on the first-generation CICPS was concentrated at the screw neck, and the screw-bone cement-bone interface stress of the experimental group was smaller than that of the control group.
conclusionThese findings suggest that second-generation CICPS have higher safety and stability than first-generation CICPS and may be a superior choice for the treatment of osteoporosis.
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.