ArticleSpine deformity2025
Construct-construct "rail technique" decreases screw strain during spinal deformity corrective maneuvers: a mechanical analysis.
Article in Spine deformity, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare screw strains adjacent to a simulated spinal osteotomy between segmental compression (SC) and cantilever bending (CB) to SC and CB performed over a construct-to-construct lateral accessory rod ("rail").
methods10 PCF foam blocks were instrumented with 6 polyaxial pedicle screws, each with a linear strain gage. SC and CB were performed over a traditional construct (midline rods) or over a construct-to-construct lateral accessory rod. Real-time screw strains were collected and peak strains were reported and compared between corrective techniques.
resultsStrains in screws closest to the osteotomy were significantly less during "rail" compression compared to traditional SC. Maximum screw strains were significantly lower during "rail" SC (p < .001) and CB (p = 0.003) compared to traditional SC and CB, respectively. Total screw strain was more evenly distributed over all 6 screws during "rail" compression and CB compared to traditional techniques, which concentrated strain at individual screws adjacent to the osteotomy.
conclusionsPerforming SC and CB across an accessory construct-to-construct lateral ("rail") rod resulted in significantly lower strain on individual pedicle screws adjacent to a simulated spinal osteotomy compared to traditional SC and CB. As such, the "rail" may lessen risk of screw pull-out and screw plow during maneuvers to correct spinal deformities. Future work focused on building upon this controlled study in cadaveric specimens will be important to validate these findings in more clinically relevant scenarios.
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.