ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Biomechanical analysis of a novel, triangular spinal fixation system.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pedicle screw fixation is a mainstay surgical technique for providing posterior stability to the spinal column, and consists of screws, rods and set caps. These components are prone to failure in various ways, but developing fixation systems with fewer components at risk of malfunction may limit construct failures. Utilizing a rod-less, triangular design, the novel system is intended to optimize construct strength while minimizing points of failure. This study aims to characterize the biomechanical performance of a novel posterior spinal instrumentation construct compared to traditional pedicle screw fixation. Methods: The ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) F1717 protocol for static compression bending, static torsion, and dynamic compression bending was followed. Biomechanical data for six (6) novel constructs were collected and compared to three (3) predicate traditional pedicle screw and rod constructs. Testing was performed to failure for each biomechanical test, and all mechanisms of failure were recorded. Results: In static compression bending, the average stiffness and displacement across all novel systems tested were 111±9.2 N/m and 4.2±0.5 mm, respectively as compared to predicate constructs which were 50±2 N/m and 18±6 mm, respectively. Static torsion testing showed that the novel systems, on average, required 21±1.7 N/m to rotate 1°-four times greater force than predicate systems. In dynamic compression bending, four novel constructs successfully reached runout at 5,000,000 cycles with a maximum applied force of 250 N. Predicate constructs were not able to tolerate loads greater than 160 N. Conclusions: The novel spine fixation system demonstrated superior biomechanical performance compared with predicate constructs in all testing completed. The novel construct was stiffer, displaced less, and required approximately four times as much torque to rotate the construct by a single degree compared with the predicate pedicle screw construct. The applied forces achieved at runout were substantially greater than predicate systems with less intraconstruct motion.
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.