ArticleNeurosurgery practice2026
Posterior Cervical Fixation: Accuracy and Safety of Free-Hand Inserted Screws.
Article in Neurosurgery practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPosterior fixation of the cervical spine (PFC) is commonly performed with rod-connected screws inserted in the vertebras. Because of the many sensitive structures located adjacent to the vertebras, computer-assisted navigation is often used with PFCs. We assessed safety and efficacy of free-hand placed PFCs.
methodsWe retrospectively identified all the patients in our institution between Januray 2006 and December 2016 who underwent a primary PFC for any indication. The postoperative images and medical records were evaluated for possible clinical failures, which was considered as a reoperation to cervical spine within 1 year after primary surgery for any reason, or a new screw-related adverse event including nerve root injury, spinal cord injury, or vertebral artery injury.
resultsIn total, 332 patients and 1476 screws were included in the study. The evaluated screws were primarily pedicle and lateral mass screws. The rate of screw malposition was 12% (171/1476). The overall rate of clinical failure was 16% (52/332) and was significantly higher in patients with screw malposition than in those without malposition (24% vs 12%,
conclusionClinical failure after posterior cervical spine fixation occurs significantly more frequently in patients with screw malposition compared with those without malposition. The overall rate of screw insertion-related clinical failure was 6.0%. These findings suggest that improving screw placement accuracy may reduce the risk of complications.
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.