Does the Direction of Pedicle Screw Rotation Affect the Biomechanics of Direct Transverse Plane Vertebral Derotation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical investigation using human cadaveric vertebrae. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the biomechanical differences in transverse plane vertebral body derotation maneuvers of thoracic pedicle screws in both medial and lateral directions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Thoracic pedicle screws are thought to have better vertebral rotation control and better segmental scoliosis correction compared to hooks and wires. Little data exists regarding the biomechanical stability of pedicle screws when derotated in either medial or lateral directions. METHODS: Vertebral bodies (T4-L5) from 12 cadavers were instrumented with appropriate length pedicle screws while measuring insertion torque. Each body was anchored for independent loading in medial or lateral directions. Each screw was rotated around a rod using a constant length lever arm (30.5 cm) rigidly attached to the screw head simulating the posterior vertebral derotation maneuver. Yield torques (Nm) were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Yield torques for both directions were significantly related to screw insertion torque (both P < 0.01). There were no statistical differences in yield torque between medial (12.0 +/- 4.9 Nm) or lateral (11.5 +/- 5.1 Nm) directions. There were no significant differences after normalization for insertion torque or screw length. Tests rotating the screw tip laterally demonstrated structural failure in the following percentages (anterolateral failure = 67%, posterior element failure = 33%, additional screw bending = 42%). Rotation medially demonstrated structural failures in the following percentages (canal penetration = 51%, posterior element failure = 49%, additional screw bending = 44%). CONCLUSION: From these data, a surgeon performing a direct vertebral derotation using a 30 cm (12 in) lever would need to apply roughly 40 N (9 lbs) to causeanatomic failure. Adolescent patients would likely tolerate a greater force without bone failure given a greater bone density, yet, extreme caution is still recommended to prevent screw rotation either medially into the spinal canal or laterally into the chest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".