Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37788974›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2023

Cement Augmentation of Pedicle Screw Instrumentation: A Literature Review.

Peter Boucas, Tania Mamdouhi, Sarah E Rizzo, Andrew Megas

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A novel UHMWPE anchor for improving the pullout resistance of pedicle screws.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Modalities of failure of cement-augmented pedicle screws.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 · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter BoucasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Huntington Hospital Northwell Health, Huntington, NY, USA.
Tania MamdouhiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Sarah E RizzoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Huntington Hospital Northwell Health, Huntington, NY, USA.
Andrew MegasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Grewal Orthopaedic and Spine Care, East Meadow, NY, USA.
Northwell Health · USHofstra University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This literature review aimed to review the current understanding, indications, and limitations of pedicle screw instrumentation cement augmentation. Since they were first reported in the 1980s, pedicle screw cement augmentation rates have been increasing. Several studies have been published to date that describe various surgical techniques and the biomechanical changes that occur when cement is introduced through the screw-bone interface. This article provides a concise review of the uses, biomechanical properties, cost analysis, complications, and surgical techniques used for pedicle screw cement augmentation to help guide physician practices. A comprehensive review of the current literature was conducted, with key studies, and contributions from throughout history being highlighted. Patients with low bone mineral density are the most well-studied indication for pedicle screw cement augmentation. Many studies show that cement augmentation can improve pullout strength in patients with low bone mineral density; however, the benefit varies inversely with pathology severity and directly with technique. The various screw types are discussed, with each having its own mechanical advantages. Cement distribution is largely dependent on the filling method and volume of cement used. Cement composition and timing of cement use after mixing are critical considerations in practice because they can significantly alter the bone-cement and screw-cement interfaces. Overall, studies have shown that pedicle screw cement augmentation has a low complication rate and increased pullout strength, justifying its universal use in patients with a suboptimal bone-implant interface.

Indexed as

BiomechanicsCementOsteoporosisPedicle screwsThoracolumbar

Identifiers

PMID37788974
PMCPMC10622820
OpenAlexW4387297699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.