ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Does Screw Number of Zero-profile Implants in Fusion Segment Influence Intervertebral Stability?
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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.
- Biomechanical comparison of two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Outcome evaluation of the zero-profile device comprising two integrated variable angle screws used for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison with the plate-cage construct.Frontiers in surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe unclear clinical outcomes of two different zero-profile implants with different number of screws in hybrid surgery restricts the choice of patient-specific implants. This study aims to compare two different implants on its postoperative subsidence, motion stabilization and clinical outcomes. It also provides references to the most reasonable implant choice in fusion surgery.
methodsThis was a retrospective study. From February 2014 to March 2022, 173 patients who underwent hybrid surgery were included. Among them, 122 received surgery with a four screw implant, while 51 received a two screw implant. We analyzed the significance of patient-specific factors, radiographic factors and clinical outcomes. The Wilcoxon rank sum test, t tests/analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and stepwise multivariate logistic regression were adopted for statistical analysis.
resultsNo statistically significant difference was observed between the two screw and four screw groups in terms of immediate, middle, and long-term stability and fusion rate (p > 0.05). However, the two screws group had higher FSU height subsidence at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and higher rates of significant subsidence at three and 6 months postoperatively (p < 0.05). Both groups showed significant clinical improvements at the final follow-up.
conclusionTwo screw and four screw implants provide comparable stability, fusion rates and clinical outcomes. However, the two screw implant was inferior to the four screw implant in subsidence prevention. Therefore, the two-screw implant is non-inferior to the four-screw implant in most patients. It can be used as the priority choice in the fusion segment by its easy manageability. However, the patients with a high risk of subsidence such as multilevel surgery, the elderly, lower BMD, bad cervical alignment should receive a four screw implant rather than a two screw implant.
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.