ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Biomechanical properties of double-headed pedicle screws and parallel connectors in thoracolumbar extension revision fixation: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
backgroundRevision surgery of the spine frequently requires removal of the original instrumentation, which can cause substantial iatrogenic tissue injury. To address this issue, we developed a revision construct utilizing double-headed pedicle screws and parallel connectors, which can obviate the need for removal of the original internal fixation. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical properties of these constructs.
methodsAn intact finite element model of T12-L5 was established. Then, four surgical models were developed. Constructs A and C simulated the traditional long and short-segment revision surgeries, respectively, which removed the original surgical connecting rods and replaced longer ones. Constructs B and D used novel double-headed pedicle screws and parallel connectors to achieve long and short-segment extended revision fixation. Finally, the range of motion (ROM), segmental displacement, and the maximum rod stress among different constructs were analyzed.
resultsThe ROM was 0.62°-1.83° in Construct A, 0.50°-1.57° in Construct B, 0.01°-0.08° in Construct C, and 0.02°-0.12° in Construct D. The maximum displacement of Constructs A, B, C, and D was 1.50–3.91 mm, 1.21–3.38 mm, 2.08–7.44 mm, and 2.10–7.49 mm, respectively. The maximum stress on rods in Constructs A, B, C, and D was 184.70-437.70 MPa, 170.72-383.49 MPa, 70.73-174.87 MPa, and 65.90- 216.74 MPa, respectively.
conclusionsThe stability and rod stress of extension revision constructs based on double-headed pedicle screws and parallel connectors was found to be comparable to that of conventional constructs. The device may make extended fixation in revision surgery possible without the need to remove the original surgical instruments.
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.