ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Biomechanical evaluation of reinsertion and revision screws in the subaxial cervical vertebrae.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical effects of reinserted or revised subaxial cervical vertebral screws.
methodsThe first part aimed to gauge the maximum insertional torque (MIT) of 30 subaxial cervical vertebrae outfitted with 4.0-mm titanium screws. A reinsertion group was created wherein a screw was wholly removed and replaced along the same trajectory to test its maximum pullout strength (MPOS). A control group was also implemented. The second part involved implanting 4.0-mm titanium screws into 20 subaxial cervical vertebrae, testing them to failure, and then reinserting 4.5-mm revision screws along the same path to determine and compare the MIT and MPOS between the test and revision groups.
resultsPart I findings: No significant difference was observed in the initial insertion's maximum insertion torque (MIT) and maximum pull-out strength (MPOS) between the control and reinsertion groups. However, the MIT of the reinsertion group was substantially decreased compared to the first insertion. Moderate to high correlations were observed between the MIT and MPOS in both groups, as well as between the MIT of the first and second screw in the reinsertion group. Part II, the MIT and MPOS of the screw in the test group showed a strong correlation, while a modest correlation was observed for the revision screw used in failed cervical vertebrae screw. Additionally, the MPOS of the screw in the test group was significantly higher than that of the revision screw group.
conclusionThis study suggests that reinsertion of subaxial cervical vertebrae screws along the same trajectory is a viable option that does not significantly affect fixation stability. However, the use of 4.5-mm revision screws is inadequate for failed fixation cases with 4.0-mm cervical vertebral screws.
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.