ArticleJournal of neurosurgery. Case lessons2024
Removal of infected bone in-growth pelvic fixation implants and microcomputed tomography analysis of osseous integration: illustrative case.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons, 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.
- Removal of spinopelvic S2 alar-iliac osseointegrative screws: a case report and surgical technique guide.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA novel pelvic fixation screw fusion device (iFuse Bedrock Granite implant) was designed to promote bony fusion through self-harvesting fenestrations throughout the outer screw shank. Bone on-growth and in-growth using this design have been demonstrated in a sheep model, but data from human subjects have not been reported. A 66-year-old medically complex female with 2 prior spine fusions developed spondylodiscitis cephalad to a prior fusion, requiring the removal of instrumentation, which included screw fusion devices. OBSERVATIONS: Within this case report, the authors present a novel bone-preserving technique for the removal of well-fixed screw fusion devices. One screw backed out with a driver, and the other 3 had to be trephined out. One screw sheared off the T30 torque driver, implying a removal torque greater than 270 inch-lbs (30.5 Nm). In addition, the removed implants were analyzed using microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) and demonstrated bone on-growth, in-growth, and through-growth in all 4 screws. LESSONS: Micro-CT clearly demonstrated osseous integration of the screw fusion devices and provided significant support for the use of these implants for lumbopelvic fixation. The authors' hope is that the novel bone-preserving technique will help other surgeons when faced with the difficult removal of well-fixed screw fusion devices. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24274.
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.