Cement Augmentation of Vertebral Screws Enhances the Interface Strength Between Interbody Device and Vertebral Body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro cadaveric study comparing cage-vertebra interface strengths for 3 different screw-cement configurations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of cement augmentation of pedicle screws on cage-vertebra interface failure properties for 2 interbody device shapes (elliptical or cloverleaf); and to compare between pedicle and anterior vertebral body screws with cement augmentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pedicle or anterior screw fixation is commonly used with interbody device fixation. Cement has recently been shown to augment screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine by improving the screw-bone interface strength. The effect of cement augmentation of pedicle or anterior screws on cage-vertebra interface properties has not been previously studied or compared. METHODS: An elliptical or a cloverleaf-shaped indentor covering 40% of the endplate was axially compressed against the superior endplate of 48 thoracolumbar vertebrae. Each vertebra had polymethylmethacrylate cement augmentation of 1) anterior screws, 2) pedicle screws, or 3) pedicle screws without cement. Compressive load was applied through a mechanism that allowed unconstrained rotation of the indentors. RESULTS: Cement augmentation of pedicle screws resulted in significantly higher failure loads (54%) and failure strength (69%) for both shaped indentors when compared with uncemented pedicle screws. There was no significant difference in failure load and failure strength between pedicle and anterior screws with cement augmentation. Indentor shape was not a significant factor on failure load or failure strength. CONCLUSIONS: Cage-vertebra interface properties were improved when cement was used to augment vertebral and pedicle screws. Cement augmentation of pedicle or anterior screws may reduce interbody device subsidence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".