ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Bone density comparison between the normal pedicle trajectory, cortical bone trajectory, and modified cortical bone trajectory using computed tomography: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCross-sectional study. PURPOSE: To compare bone density by computed tomography Hounsfield unit (CTHU) between the original pedicle trajectory (OPT), cortical bone trajectory (CBT), and modified cortical bone trajectory (MCBT). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The significant pullout strength in CBT is believed to be due to increased screw-cortical bone contact; however, it allows for shorter/less-diameter screw placement, and the fixation is limited to the posterior one-third of the vertebral body, compromising the screw anchorage in the anterior vertebra.
methodsComputed tomography transverse sections of the L1-L5 (1,000 vertebrae) of 200 patients were cut into three planes: (1) horizontal to the pedicle, representing the plane for OPT; (2) in the caudocranial plane in the sagittal plane and divergent in the transverse plane representing the CBT; and (3) the caudocranial plane in the sagittal plane and parallel in the transverse plane representing the MCBT. For each trajectory, the CTHU of four points, namely, posterior cortex, mid-pedicle, midbody, and anterior cortex, were compared within the area of screw insertion.
resultsThe mean CTHUs of OPT, CBT, and MCBT were 354.2±70 HU, 529.9±75 HU, and 457.3±90 HU, respectively (p <0.01). The CTHU of the posterior cortex in MCBT was 65.6% higher than that in OPT and 14.9% lower than that in CBT. A comparable decline in CTHU with age was noted in CBT and MCBT (Pearson's r : -0.20 vs. -0.22; adjusted R 2: 0.040 vs. 0.047). However, a higher decline in CTHU with age was observed in OPT (Pearson's r =-0.38, adjusted R 2=0.14).
conclusionsMCBT has a significantly higher CTHU than OPT. The density in the posterior cortex in MCBT is comparable to that in the CBT trajectory. MCBT appears to be an alternative trajectory for lumbar spine fixation.
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.