Trial reportScientific reports2025
A comparative study of lumbar spine stabilization with 2-stage surgery and cement augmentation in osteoporosis patients: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Pedicle Screw Loosening After Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery and an Analytical Review of Recurrent Loosening: Based on Revision Surgery Experience.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Adult degenerative scoliosis: challenges in diagnosis, pain management, and surgical decision-making.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The biggest challenge for osteoporotic patients after spinal stabilization is screw loosening. Therefore, the present study was conducted with the comparative aim of stabilizing the lumbar spine with 2-stage surgery and cement augmentation in osteoporotic patients. 66 patients selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to two groups: CAPS and 2-stage surgery. In the CAPS group, lumbar spine fixation was performed in a single stage, accompanied by cement augmentation. In the 2-stage surgery group, spinal stabilization was conducted in 2 stages. In the first stage, pedicle screws were implanted, followed by the pedicle screw anchoring process 6 months later. fusion rate, screw loosening, pain levels (VAS), and patients' disability (ODI) were measured in each group. The fusion rate in the 2-stage Surgery group significantly increased. Screw loosening in the CAPS group showed a significantly higher difference. The rate of pain and disability in patients early postoperatively, in comparison to preoperative measures, significantly decreased in both groups. In the final follow-up, the CAPS group experienced a significant increase in pain and disability. The 2-stage Surgery stabilization, when compared to the CAPS technique, demonstrates superiority in enhancing the biomechanical stability of screws and achieving successful fusion.
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.