ArticleBrain & spine2024
Percutaneous reduction of thoracolumbar fractures using monoaxial screws: Comparison of two instruments based on initial reduction and loss of reduction.
Article in Brain & spine, 2024. 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.
- Management of Fractures of the Thoracolumbar Spine-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The bisegmental Cobb angle in osteoporotic spine fractures: Does it influence treatment decision or functional outcome?Brain & spine · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Percutaneous techniques for the surgical treatment of vertebral fractures are constantly progressing. There are different biomechanics involved. Research question: Two percutaneous, monoaxial fixation systems with different reduction tools were analyzed in relation to their reduction capacity. Additionally, the impact of anterior fusion, fracture severity and bone quality on reduction and loss of reduction were examined. Material and methods: 117 cases were retrospectively included in the monocentric study. The subsample (N = 53) with complete data at follow-up times was used to analyze the influence of anterior fusion. The dependencies on fracture severity and bone quality were determined using Spearman and Pearson correlation. Results: Both systems achieved equally good reduction (9° mean, 95%-CI: 8°-11°, p < 0.001). Anterior fused patients showed not significant (p = 0.057) less loss of reduction over time. Fracture severity had neither an influence on reduction or loss of reduction. Bone quality was positively correlated with greater amount of reduction and less loss of reduction. Early reduction within two days correlated with a greater amount of reduction (p = 0.006). Screw diameters and the patient's weight had no influence on loss of reduction. Complications occurred only in "V2" group. Discussion and conclusion: Both systems are equivalent in reduction ability. The additional anterior fusion did not result in significantly lower reduction losses. The subsample being small, is a limitation. Good bone quality correlates with better initial reduction and less reduction loss. A preoperative bone density measurement can lead to optimization of surgical techniques.
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.