ArticleJOR spine2023
Evaluation of instrumentation and pedicle screw design for posterior lumbar fixation: A pre-clinical
Article in JOR spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ovine models of intervertebral disc degeneration.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluation of instrumentation and pedicle screw design for posterior lumbar fixation: A pre-clinicalJOR spine · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stabilization procedures of the lumbar spine are routinely performed for various conditions, such as spondylolisthesis and scoliosis. Spine surgery has become even more common, with the incidence rates increasing ~30% between 2004 and 2015. Various solutions to increase the success of lumbar stabilization procedures have been proposed, ranging from the device's geometrical configuration to bone quality enhancement via grafting and, recently, through modified drilling instrumentation. Conventional (manual) instrumentation renders the excavated bony fragments ineffective, whereas the " Methods: This study aimed to compare both manual versus rotary Osseodensification (OD) instrumentation as well as two different pedicle screw thread designs in a controlled split animal model in posterior lumbar stabilization to determine the feasibility and potential advantages of each variable with respect to mechanical stability and histomorphology. A total of 164 single thread (82 per thread configuration), pedicle screws (4.5 × 35 mm) were used for the study. Each animal received eight pedicles (four per thread design) screws, which were placed in the lumbar spine of 21 adult sheep. One side of the lumbar spine underwent rotary osseodensification instrumentation, while the contralateral underwent conventional, hand, instrumentation. The animals were euthanized after 6- and 24-weeks of healing, and the vertebrae were removed for biomechanical and histomorphometric analyses. Pullout strength and histologic analysis were performed on all harvested samples. Results: The rotary instrumentation yielded statistically ( Conclusion: The rotary instrumentation yielded enhanced mechanical and histologic results relative to the conventional hand instrumentation in this lumbar spine stabilization model.
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.