ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Ultrasonic Versus High-Speed Drilling for C2 Pedicle Screw Placement with High-Riding Vertebral Artery: A Comparative Study of Vascular Safety and Thermal Injury.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveHigh-riding vertebral artery (HRVA) anatomy markedly narrows the corridor for C2 pedicle screw placement and increases the risk of vertebral artery injury. Ultrasonic bone drilling (UBD) may improve vascular safety compared with high-speed drilling (HSD), but its thermal effects and influence on early fixation remain unclear. This study compared UBD and HSD for C2 pedicle screw tract preparation in HRVA anatomy.
methodsThis integrated clinical-experimental study included a retrospective clinical cohort of 33 patients with 43 HRVA pedicles, a perfused 3D-printed C2 benchtop model with porcine arteries, and a paired rabbit model. Clinical outcomes included conversion to alternative fixation due to failure, substantial venous plexus bleeding, and vascular injury. In the benchtop model, standardized 1-, 2-, and 3-mm pedicle breaches were created to assess arterial injury risk. In rabbits, intraoperative bone temperature, acute osteonecrosis depth, bone healing by micro-CT, and screw pull-out strength at 0, 4, and 12 weeks were evaluated.
resultsIn the clinical cohort, UBD was associated with lower rates of conversion to alternative fixation (3.8% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.022) and substantial venous bleeding (7.7% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.034); one minor vertebral artery injury occurred in the HSD group, although the low event rate limits statistical power (p = 0.395). In benchtop testing, HSD caused more frequent full-thickness arterial perforation at 2 mm and 3 mm breaches. In rabbits, UBD generated higher peak bone temperatures and deeper acute osteonecrosis, with a trend toward delayed bone healing. Pull-out strength was significantly lower in the UBD group at 4 weeks; at 12 weeks, no statistically significant difference was detected between groups.
conclusionUBD was associated with improved intraoperative feasibility in this retrospective HRVA cohort and showed fewer vessel perforations in a benchtop model, but prospective validation is required. Its greater thermal injury and lower pull-out strength at 4 weeks highlight the need for optimized drilling parameters and effective irrigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42776405What 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.