ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Outcomes and Biomechanical Evaluation of the Cement-Catching Screw Technique for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Pedicle screw insertion technique into a previously cement-augmented vertebral body: a technical note with a case series.Asian spine journal · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe developed a cement-catching screw (CCS) technique for pedicle screw insertion into hardened cement, connecting anterior and posterior vertebral elements during balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). This study reports the CCS technique, clinical outcomes, and biomechanical properties.
methodsThis retrospective study included 59 patients (20 men, 39 women; mean age, 77.4 ± 8.7 years) who underwent BKP with one-above-one-below posterior fixation for OVFs between 2020 and 2023. Patients were divided into CCS (-) (without intermediate screws, n = 28) and CCS (+) (with intermediate CCSs, n = 31) groups. Clinical and radiographic outcomes, including activities of daily living, vertebral wedge angle (VWA), surgical level Cobb angle (CA), anterior vertebral body height (AVBH), screw loosening, pullout, and adjacent vertebral fractures, were evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up (≥6 months). Biomechanical pullout strength was assessed at different insertion depths (5, 10, and 15 mm) using polymethylmethacrylate cement.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between groups in age, sex, follow-up duration, or blood loss; however, the operation time was significantly longer in the CCS (+) group than in the CCS (-) group (P < 0.0001). Radiographic outcomes showed no significant differences in the VWA, CA, AVBH, adjacent vertebral fracture rates, and reoperation rates. However, the incidence of adjacent pedicle screws loosening and pullout was significantly higher in the CCS (-) group than in the CCS (+) group (P = 0.046 and 0.0084, respectively). The correction loss of the CA was significantly lower in the CCS (+) group (CCS (-), 5.6° ± 4.8°; CCS (+), 3.5° ± 4.8°, P = 0.023). The biomechanical test revealed pullout strengths of 683 ± 164, 2231 ± 208, and 3477 ± 393 N for insertion depths of 5, 10, and 15 mm, respectively, with significant increases by depth (P = 0.003 and 0.009).
conclusionsThe CCS technique improves anterior-posterior vertebral body stability, enhances fixation strength, and contributes to better surgical outcomes in OVFs treatment.
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.