ArticleCureus2024
Efficiency of Long Lateral Mass Screw in Posterior Cervical Fusion.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Accuracy, safety, and functional outcomes of O-arm navigation-guided posterior cervical spine fixation: An ambispective cohort of 147 screws.Surgical neurology international · 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
introductionLong lateral mass screw (LLMS) technique for posterior cervical fusion has been performed in our hospital since 2019. In this study, the LLMS insertion technique, deviation rate, and insertion torque have been described. Moreover, several major concerns associated with LLMS have been adequately addressed.
methodsThis study included 58 patients (43 men and 15 women) who had undergone LLMS surgery at our hospital during the four-year period from December 2019 to December 2023, and were evaluated using postoperative CT. The evaluation parameters included the screw length at each vertebral segment, screw angle in the sagittal section, distance between the screw heads, and complications.
resultsThe median screw length at C3 was 23.0 mm (22.0-24.0 mm), the screw angle was 36.1° (31.6-41.8°), and the distance between screw heads was 13.8 mm (11.6-17.2 mm). The median screw length at C4 was 22.0 mm (21.0-24.0 mm), the screw angle was 36.2° (28.7-40.7°), and the distance between screw heads was 15.9 mm (13.0-19.0 mm). The median screw length at C5 was 21.0 mm (20.0-22.0 mm), the screw angle was 35.6° (28.0-39.7°), and the distance between screw heads was 17.6 mm (15.1-20.4 mm). The median screw length for C6 was 20.0 mm (19.0-22.0 mm), the screw angle was 29.2° (25.2-36.8°), and the distance between screw heads was 20.4 mm (16.1-24.4 mm).
conclusionThe major limitations of the LLMS technique were inadequate screw angle, difficulty inserting long screws, inadequate decompression, and the inability to perform cervical laminoplasty. However, these limitations did not substantially affect the efficiency of LLMS. LLMS has fewer complications and can insert longer screws than LMS.
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.