ArticleBMC surgery2023
A practical method for the retrieval of tulip-head polyaxial pedicle screw by reusing the rod in revision and implants removal surgery: introduction of technique and evaluation of clinical outcomes.
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Explantation of Pedicle Screws: When, Why, and How?Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe removal of spinal implants is needed in revision surgery or in some cases whose fracture had healed or fusion had occurred. The slip of polyaxial screw or mismatch of instruments would make this simple procedure intractable. Here we introduce a simple and practical method to address this clinical dilemma.
methodsThis is a retrospective study. The patients underwent new technique for retrieving the implants from July 2019 to July 2022 were labeled as group A, while the patients underwent traditional implants retrieval technique from January 2017 to January 2020 were labeled as group B. Patients in each group were subdivided into revision surgery group (r group) and simple implants removal group (s group) according to the surgery fashion. For the new technique, the retrieved rod was cut off to a proper length which was matched with the size of tulip head, and was replaced into the tulip head. After tightened with nut, a monoaxial screw-rod "construct" was formed. Then the "construct" can be retrieved by a counter torque. The operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative bacteria culture, hospital stay and costs were analyzed.
resultsA total of 116 polyaxial screws with difficult retrieval (43 screws in group A, 73 screws in group B) in 78 patients were recorded, in which 115 screws were successfully retrieved. Significant differences were found in the mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss when comparing the r group in group A and B, as well as the s group in group A and B (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in hospital stay and costs between group A and B. Three patients were found positive bacteria culture of drainage tube/tape in group A (3/30), while 7 patients in group B (7/48). The most prevalent bacteria was Propionibacterium acnes.
conclusionThis technique is practical and safe in retrieving tulip head poly-axial screw. Reduced operation duration and intraoperative bloods loss may potentially alleviate the hospitalization burden of patients. Positive bacterial cultivation results are common after implants removal surgery, but they rarely represent an organized infection. A positive culture with P. acnes or S. epidermidis should be interpreted with caution.
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.