ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Biomechanical Properties of Novel Porous Scaffold Core and Hollow Lateral Hole Pedicle Screws: A Comparative Study in Bama Pigs.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveScrew loosening is a common complication of internal fixation of pedicle screw. Therefore, the development of a pedicle screw with low loosening rate and high biosafety is of great clinical significance. This study aimed to investigate whether the application of a porous scaffold structure can improve the stability of pedicle screws by comparing the biomechanical properties of novel porous scaffold core pedicle screws (PSCPSs) with those of hollow lateral hole pedicle screws (HLHPSs) in a porcine lumbar spine.
methodsThirty-two pedicle screws of both types were implanted bilaterally into the L1-4 vertebrae of four Bama pigs, with our newly designed PSCPSs on the right and HLHPSs on the left. All the Bama pigs were sacrificed 16 weeks postoperatively, and the lumbar spine was freed into individual vertebrae. Biomechanical properties of both the pedicle screws were evaluated using pull-out tests, as well as cyclic bending and pull-out tests, while the mechanical properties were assessed using three-point bending tests. The data generated were statistically analyzed using paired-sample t-tests and two independent sample t-tests.
resultsWe found that the maximal pull-out forces before and after cyclic bending of the PSCPSs (1161.50 ± 337.98 N and 1075.25 ± 223.33 N) were significantly higher than those of the HLHPSs (948.38 ± 194.32 N and 807.13 ± 242.75 N) (p < 0.05, p < 0.05). In 800 cycles of the bending tests, neither PSCPS nor HLHPS showed loosening or visible detachment, but their maximal pull-out forces after cyclic bending tests decreased compared to those in cycles without cyclic bending tests (7.43% and 14.89%, respectively), with no statistical significance (p > 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively). Additionally, both screws buckled rather than broke in the three-point bending tests, with no statistically significant differences between the maximal bending load and modulus of elasticity of the two screws (p > 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively).
conclusionsCompared with the HLHPSs, the PSCPSs have greater pull-out resistance and better fatigue tolerance with appropriate mechanical properties. Therefore, PSCPSs theoretically have significant potential for clinical applications in reducing the incidence of loosening after pedicle screw implantation.
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.