Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38363348›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024

Comparison of cement-augmented pedicle screw and conventional pedicle screw for the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis.

Yazhou Wang, Chenghao Zhou, Huabin Yin, Dianwen Song

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cement leakage risk reduction and propensity score matching analysis of clinical efficacy for Cement-Augmented fenestrated pedicle screw in patients with osteoporosis.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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Yazhou WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Songjiang District Central Hospital, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0934-4795
Chenghao ZhouDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 650 New Songjiang Road, Songjiang District, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Huabin YinDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 650 New Songjiang Road, Songjiang District, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Dianwen SongDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 650 New Songjiang Road, Songjiang District, Shanghai, 200080, China. dianwen_song@126.com.

Funding

Shanghai Songjiang District Science and Technology Key Project No.18sjkjgg48
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA retrospective cohort study.

objectiveTo compare the safety and clinical efficacy between using cement-augmented pedicle screws (CAPS) and conventional pedicle screws (CPS) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis. Management of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis undergoing spine surgery is challenging. The clinical efficacy and potential complications of the mid-term performance of the CAPS technique in the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis remain to be evaluated. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe data of 131 lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis who were treated with screw fixation from May 2016 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The patients were divided into the following two groups according to the type of screw used: (I) the CAPS group (n = 85); and (II) the CPS group (n = 46). Relevant data were compared between two groups, including the demographics data, clinical results and complications.

resultsThe difference in the VAS, ODI and JOA scores at three and 6 months after the operation between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). At 12 months after surgery and the final follow-up, a significant difference in the fusion rate was found between the two groups (P < 0.05). Four cemented screws loosening were observed in the CAPS group (loosening rate 4/384, 1.04%) and 15 screws loosening were observed in the CPS group (loosening rate 15/214, 7.01%). In the CAPS group, a total of 384 augmented screws were used, and cement leakage was observed in 25 screws (25/384, 6.51%), but no obvious clinical symptoms or serious complications were observed. Adjacent vertebral fractures occurred in six patients in the CAPS group and one in the CPS group.

conclusionsCAPS technique is an effective strategy for the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis, with a higher fusion rate and lower screw loosening rate than CPS.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisPedicle ScrewsSpinal FusionBone CementsHumansLumbar VertebraeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBone CementsCement-augmented pedicle screwComplicationLumbar degenerative patientsOsteoporosisSpinal internal fixation

Identifiers

PMID38363348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.