ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Comparative biomechanical analysis of monocortical and bicortical polyaxial screw rod fixation in canine lumbar vertebral stabilization.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical properties of polyaxial screws-rod fixation (PSR) in stabilizing a single vertebral motion unit (VMU) fracture model and to compare the effectiveness of different stabilization techniques such as monocortical and bicortical. Methods: A total of 12 thoracolumbar vertebral column specimens were harvested from canine cadavers. These specimens were divided into two groups based on the stabilization technique applied: a monocortical group and a bicortical group. Each group underwent biomechanical testing to assess flexion/extension and lateral bending motions. The range of motion (ROM), neutral zone (NZ), and stiffness were measured for each lumbar VMU in three conditions: intact, fractured with unilateral stabilization, and fractured with bilateral stabilization. Results: In the 3-column fracture model, PSR was unable to restore the ROM of an intact spine in flexion/extension. In lateral bending, only bilateral PSR successfully approached the ROM of the intact spine. Notably, PSR failures were observed in four specimens when applied as monocortical and unilateral stabilization. Conclusion: The findings indicate that even bilateral PSR does not fully restore the intact spine's ROM in canine fracture models, highlighting the need for further research to optimize stabilization techniques. The current study demonstrates that a single 3-column lumbar fracture model VMU cannot be adequately stabilized using PSR in a canine model, suggesting potential limitations in both monocortical and bicortical approaches.
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.