Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40875646›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Novel cervical pedicle screw design to enhance the safety insertion without compromising biomechanical strength.

Pilan Jaipanya, Pongsthorn Chanplakorn, Annop Sikongkaew, Anak Khantachawan, Suphaneewan Jaovisidha, Thamrong Lertudomphonwanit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Pilan JaipanyaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-1941-2051
Pongsthorn ChanplakornDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-7496-2670
Annop SikongkaewDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Anak KhantachawanDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suphaneewan JaovisidhaDepartment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thamrong LertudomphonwanitDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-1670-8789

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLateral mass screw (LMS) is a more widely adopted method for posterior cervical spine fixation than the cervical pedicle screw (CPS). Despite its lower pullout strength, the insertions of LMS are more reproducible and have a lower risk. CPS insertion is a technically demanding procedure due to the small pedicle channel. Thus, CPS insertion has a high risk of pedicle wall perforation, resulting in neurovascular injury. For these reasons, surgeons may avoid CPS insertion despite its benefit of greater biomechanical strength. Therefore, an improvement in the CPS design is needed to avoid this catastrophic complication.

objectivesTo develop a new design of CPS, aiming to decrease pedicle wall perforation, while maintaining the biomechanical properties comparable to those of standard CPS. MATERIALS &

methodsTo reduce the risk of pedicle wall perforation, a novel CPS design should be configured in tapered shape, with a tapering screw pitch and thread diameter with a self-tapping thread. A bilayer bone finite element model representing the cortical and cancellous bone of the cervical spine pedicle was used for pullout strength test. According to our CT-based study of cervical pedicle anatomy in a normal population, the final CPS was created according to the parameters that yielded the best biomechanical strength according to finite element studies. The safety of CPS insertion, in terms of pedicle wall penetration, was assessed in 3D-printed cervical spine models of C3-C7. The pullout test was subsequently performed in a tri-layer sawbones foam model to compare the novel CPS, convention CPS, and lateral mass screw.

resultsThe final screw design was a taper configuration with core diameter from 2.5 to 2.0 mm, thread diameter from 4.0 to 2.5 mm and pitch length from 1.0 to 1.25 mm. A total of 60 screws (30 conventional CPS screw and 30 Novel CPS screw) were tested in 6 3D cervical spine models. No case of pedicle wall perforation were found in the novel-design CPS group. In the conventional CPS group, 8 pedicle wall perforations were encountered, which was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.002). The novel CPS screw design and conventional CPS screw yielded pullout strengths of 449.7 N and 495.0 N, respectively, which showed no statistical difference. The LMS screw yielded a pullout strength of 168.3 N, showing statistically less strength compared with the 2 types of CPS screws.

conclusionsThe proposed novel CPS could decrease pedicle wall perforation and enhance the safety of screw insertion. Its pullout strength is comparable to that of a 3.5-mm standard CPS and superior to that of a 3.5-mm lateral mass screw.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraePedicle ScrewsSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaEquipment DesignFinite Element AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID40875646
PMCPMC12393700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.