MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966804963 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e318205e3af

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Fenestrated Pedicle Screw Augmented With Bone Cement in Osteoporotic Spines

2011· article· en· W1966804963 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Pare, James L. Chappuis, Raja Rampersaud, Amit Agarwala, Joseph H. Perra, Serkan Erkan, Chunhui Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCadaveric spasmPolymethyl methacrylateBone cementFixation (population genetics)Lumbar spineLumbarCadaverLumbar vertebraeBiomechanicsImplantSurgeryCementDentistryOrthodonticsAnatomyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative biomechanical study was conducted in osteoporotic human cadaveric spines. OBJECTIVE: Determine the influence of the volume of polymethyl methacrylate injected through a fenestrated pedicle screw on the pullout strength and on the ability to safely remove the implant. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine can be improved by the addition of bone cement. Various injection techniques have been used. While improvement has been shown for the pullout strength, the optimal volume of cement to inject has not been previously studied. METHODS: Seven osteoporotic spines were instrumented with a standard and a fenestrated pedicle screw augmented with polymethyl methacrylate at each level (T7-L5). Three volumes of bone cement were randomly injected and stratified to the thoracic (0.5 cc, 1.0 cc, and 1.5 cc) and lumbar spine (1.5 cc, 2.0 cc, and 2.5 cc). Axial pullout strength and removal torque of the pedicle screws were quantified. RESULTS: The pullout strength of the fenestrated screw was normalized with respect to its contralateral control. Student paired t tests were conducted and a statistically significant increase was noted for 1.0 cc (186 ± 45%) and 1.5 cc (158 ± 46%) in the thoracic spine and for 1.5 cc (264 ± 193%), 2.0 cc (221 ± 93%), and 2.5 cc (198 ± 42%) in the lumbar spine. There was no significant difference with higher volumes of cement. The median removal torque was 0.34 Nm for the standard and 1.83 Nm for the augmented screws. When the augmented implants were removed, the bone cement sheared completely off at the fenestrations in 15 of the 17 cases. CONCLUSION: Significant increases in pullout strength can be accomplished by injecting a limited quantity of bone cement through a fenestrated screw while minimizing the risks associated with higher volume. The majority of implants were removed without damaging the vertebra as the bone cement sheared off at the fenestrations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations128
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207