ArticleSpine deformity2024
Biomechanical evaluation of multi-rod constructs to stabilize an S1 pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): a finite element analysis.
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a finite element (FE) model of a sacral pedicle subtraction osteotomy (S1-PSO) and to compare biomechanical properties of various multi-rod configurations to stabilize S1-PSOs.
methodsA previously validated FE spinopelvic model was used to develop a 30° PSO at the sacrum. Five multi-rod techniques spanning the S1-PSO were made using 4 iliac screws and a variety of primary rods (PR) and accessory rods (AR; lateral: Lat-AR or medial: Med-AR). All constructs, except one, utilized a horizontal rod (HR) connecting the iliac bolts to which PRs and Med-ARs were connected. Lat-ARs were connected to proximal iliac bolts. The simulation was performed in two steps with the acetabula fixed. For each model, PSO ROM and maximum stress on the PRs, ARs, and HRs were recorded and compared. The maximum stress on the L5-S1 disc and the PSO forces were captured and compared.
resultsHighest PSO ROMs were observed for 4-Rods (HR + 2 Med-AR). Constructs consisting of 5-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-ARs + 1 Med-AR) and 6-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-AR + 2 Med-AR) had the lowest PSO ROM. The least stress on the primary rods was seen with 6-Rods, followed by 5-Rods and 4-Rods (HR + 2 Lat-ARs). Lowest PSO forces and lowest L5-S1 disc stresses were observed for 4-Rod (Lat-AR), 5-Rod, and 6-Rod constructs, while 4-Rods (HR + Med-AR) had the highest.
conclusionIn this first FE analysis of an S1-PSO, the 4-Rod construct (HR + Med-AR) created the least rigid environment and highest PSO forces anteriorly. While 5- and 6-Rods created the stiffest constructs and lowest stresses on the primary rods, it also jeopardized load transfer to the anterior column, which may not be favorable for healing anteriorly. A balance between the construct's rigidity and anterior load sharing is essential.
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.