Comparison of open and percutaneous navigated pedicle screw placement for traumatic injuries of the subaxial cervical spine.

Fenna Brunken, Jula Gierse, Philipp Raisch, Paul A Grützner, Sven Y Vetter

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Minimally invasive cervical spine stabilization: A multicenter study of completely percutaneous pedicle screw-rod instrumentation.Brain & spine · 2026
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

5 authors.

Fenna BrunkenBG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Department for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery at Heidelberg University, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Jula GierseBG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Department for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery at Heidelberg University, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Philipp RaischBG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Department for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery at Heidelberg University, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Paul A GrütznerBG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Department for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery at Heidelberg University, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Sven Y VetterBG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Department for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery at Heidelberg University, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cervical pedicle screw (CPS) placement is a technically demanding procedure with a high risk of neurovascular injuries in case of screw misplacement. In contrast to the thoracolumbar spine, there is limited data on percutaneous pedicle screw placement in the cervical spine. Research question: This study aims to compare the accuracy, blood loss and duration of surgery for open and percutaneous CPS placement for traumatic injuries of the subaxial cervical spine. Materials and methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 22 patients undergoing percutaneous CPS placement were compared to a control group of 18 patients treated with open CPS placement. The screw position was analyzed in postoperative CT scans using the Neo and Bredow classifications. Additionally, intraoperative radiation exposure, duration of surgery, and blood loss were evaluated. Results: The overall accuracy (perforation <2 mm) was 89.71 % for percutaneous and 89.29 % for open CPS placement (p > 0.99). None of the misplaced screws resulted in neurovascular injuries. One patient in the control group underwent revision surgery due to screw misplacement. The mean duration of surgery and intraoperative blood loss were lower in percutaneous compared to open procedures. There was no significant difference in intraoperative radiation exposure between the two groups. Discussion and conclusion: The results suggest that percutaneous CPS placement in the subaxial spine is feasible with similar accuracy compared to open CPS placement. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Cervical pedicle screw placementSpinal navigationSubaxial spine injuryTrauma

Identifiers

PMID41341859

DOI10.1016/j.bas.2025.105880

PMCPMC12670886

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.