ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
S2AI revision surgery - biomechanical evaluation of increased screw diameters.
Article in 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, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis cadaveric study investigated whether, during revision surgery for S2 ala ilium (S2AI) screws, the choice of 11.5 mm diameter screws is superior to 10.5 mm screws in terms of biomechanical stability. The secondary goal was to determine whether increasing the diameter of the revision screws provided adequate stability.
methods9.5 mm diameter S2AI screws were subjected to cyclic mechanical vertical loading until failure (loosening > 5 mm) occurred. A revision using a 10.5- or 11.5-mm diameter screw was performed, and the described vertical loading was applied again. The force in Newtons (N) until failure was assessed and subjected to matched-pair analysis.
results10.5 mm screws demonstrated greater stability (mean + 41.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0205). 11.5 mm screws also demonstrated greater stability (mean + 53.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0242). Comparison of both 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm revision screw options showed no significant difference in absolute increase of stability (p = 0.6004). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the relative increase in stability, measured as fold change (p = 0.4052).
conclusionRevision surgery with both screws demonstrated noteworthy enhancement in stability. However, the choice between 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm screws for optimal revision stability appears inconsequential. This suggests that factors beyond the screw diameter may play a crucial role in the stability of revision screws.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41094111What 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.