ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Biomechanical insights into anterolateral vertebral screw fixation in osteoporotic spines: a comparative study of fixation methods and positions using porcine vertebrae.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. 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
objectiveCombining oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with posterior pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) has been proposed to reduce cage subsidence, especially in osteoporotic spines. Recently, anterolateral screw-rod fixation has gained interest as it allows direct pathology observation and avoids a posterior approach. However, controversies exist between anterolateral screw fixation systems and traditional PPSF due to variations in osteoporotic vertebral mineral density, screw fixation positions, and fixation methods (bicortical vs. unicortical). This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical impact of fixation position and method in osteoporotic spine.
methodsSeventy-two fresh‑frozen porcine vertebrae (L1-6) were decalcified using 0.5 M EDTA and divided into two groups based on fixation method: bicortical or unicortical. Six groups for each method were created according to the screw position in the lateral vertebral body, with six specimens in each group: anterior, central, and posterior in the middle body and para-endplate regions. Correlations among screw position, fixation method and axial pullout strength were analyzed.
resultsA 4-week decalcification process, bone mineral density in the porcine vertebrae decreased to approximately 48% (p < 0.05) of the original value, categorizing them as osteoporotic. Bicortical fixation showed significantly greater pullout forces than unicortical fixation, with differences ranging from 82 to 273%. Notably, central or posterior screws outperformed anterior screws in pullout strength.
conclusionBicortical fixation exhibited significantly greater pullout forces than unicortical fixation. We suggest positioning screws in the central or posterior region of the middle body with bicortical fixation in osteoporotic vertebrae.
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.