ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
The benefit of cement-augmented pedicle screws for revision surgery in osteoporotic bone - a cadaveric study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIncreasing numbers of spine surgery cases and an aging society led to challenges during revision surgery with osteoporotic bone. Safe and stable operative techniques are required.
methodsIn this ex vivo study, human lumbar vertebrae were prepared and then screened for assessing bone density. Eighteen donors (65 vertebrae) with osteoporotic conditions were included. Primary dorsal instrumentation was performed using either standard pedicle screws (6.35 mm diameter; Group A, n = 50) or vertebroplasty screws (VT, 6.35 mm; Group B, n = 15). This was followed by a standardized pull-out test cycle, after which the vertebrae of group A exhibited pedicle perforations replicating revision conditions. Subsequently, 50 vertebrae from Group A were reassigned to simulate revision conditions and divided into two subgroups (n = 25 each): Group A1 received conventional pedicle screws with an increased diameter (7.5 mm), while Group A2 was treated with cement-augmented pedicle screws (VT, 6.35 mm). A second pull-out test was performed, and statistical analysis was conducted.
resultsThe specimens with conventional screws had a lower mean pull-out strength compared to primarily cement-augmented screws during the first pull-out cycle 662.8 ± 365.1 N vs. 1066.1 ± 213.7 N. In the revision model, cement-augmented screws (Group A2) demonstrated a significant higher median pull-out strength compared to larger-diameter conventional screws (Group A1) (687.5 N [IQR: 448.8-1137.5 N]; vs. 486.5 N [IQR: 338.8-605.0 N]).
conclusionIn this ex vivo revision model of osteoporotic bone, increasing screw diameter alone resulted in reduced pull-out strength compared to primary instrumentation, whereas cement-augmented pedicle screws consistently demonstrated superior fixation in both test cycles. These findings highlight the limited effectiveness of increasing screw diameter under revision conditions and support cement augmentation as a biomechanically advantageous strategy in osteoporotic bone, while clinical validation remains necessary.
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.