ReviewSpine surgery and related research2025
Outcomes after Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw versus Traditional Pedicle Screw in Single-Level Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Spine surgery and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic-assisted fixation with cortical bone trajectory versus conventional pedicle trajectory for short-segment lumbar decompression and fusion surgery: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Orthopedic Biomaterials in the Clinical Reconstruction of Osteoporotic Atlantoaxial Injuries: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- How Patient-Specific Guides Can Ease the Learning Curve of Cortical Bone Trajectory: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cortical bone trajectory screw (CBTS) is reported to offer increased cortical bone purchase and improved outcomes as compared to the traditional pedicle screw (PS), particularly in osteoporotic patients. The systematic review aims to compare randomized controlled trials comparing CBTS with PS in single-level lumbar spine fusion surgery. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Moreover, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were also searched. Outcome measures included fusion rates, complication rates, perioperative parameters, pain scores, and functionality. (PROSPERO: CRD42024523809). Results: Four manuscripts, reporting on three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 416 patients, were included in this review. The follow-up ranged from 24 to 26 months postoperatively. All patients underwent single-level fusion only. There was no significant difference in the fusion rates between CBTS and PS at one-year (risk ratio [RR] 1.05 [0.97, 1.13], p=0.24) or two-year (RR 1.02 [0.96, 1.08], p=0.47) follow-ups. The CBTS group had a lower risk of intraoperative complications (RR 0.44 [0.32, 0.60], p<0.001) but an equal risk of postoperative complications (RR 0.71 [0.42, 1.22], p=0.22). There was no difference in pain, functionality, disability, and quality-of-life scores. CBTS group had better outcomes in incision length (mean difference [MD] -25.44 [-40.76, -10.12], p=0.001), operative time (MD -20.71 [-32.91, -8.51], p=0.009), and blood loss (MD -60.23 [-106.74, -13.72], p=0.01), while there was no difference in length of stay (MD -0.49 [-1.01, 0.04], p=0.07). Conclusions: Although slightly favoring CBTS, RCTs were limited in number and had a serious risk of bias. Future RCTs should use superiority trial designs, have minimal bias, and include implant details, incidence of adjacent segment disease, and quality-of-life metrics.
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.