MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316468561 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31825a676e

Enhancing Pedicle Screw Fixation in the Aging Spine With a Novel Bioactive Bone Cement

2012· article· en· W2316468561 on OpenAlexaff
Qingan Zhu, Stephen Kingwell, Zhaoyang Li, Haobo Pan, William W. Lu, Thomas R. Oxland

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmFixation (population genetics)Bone cementMedicineCementBiomechanicsOsseointegrationLumbar vertebraeOrthodonticsBiomedical engineeringDentistryMaterials scienceImplantLumbarSurgeryComposite materialAnatomyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A paired biomechanical study of pedicle screws augmented with bone cement in a human cadaveric and osteoporotic lumbar spine model. OBJECTIVES.: To evaluate immediate strength and stiffness of pedicle screw fixation augmented with a novel bioactive bone cement in an osteoporotic spine model and compare it with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A novel bioactive bone cement, containing nanoscale particles of strontium and hydroxyapatite (Sr-HA), can promote new bone formation and osteointegration and provides a promising reinforcement to the osteoporotic spine. Its immediate mechanical performance in augmenting pedicle screw fixation has not been evaluated. METHODS: Two pedicle screws augmented with Sr-HA and PMMA cement were applied to each of 10 isolated cadaveric L3 vertebrae. Each screw was subjected to a toggling test and screw kinematics were calculated. The pedicle screw was subjected to a pullout test until failure. Finally, the screw coverage with cement was measured on computed tomographic images. RESULTS: Screw translations in the toggling test were consistently larger in the Sr-HA group than in the PMMA group (1.4 ± 1.2 mm vs. 1.0 ± 1.1 mm at 1000 cycles). The rotation center was located closer to the screw tip in the Sr-HA group (19% of screw length) than in the PMMA group (37%). The only kinematic difference between Sr-HA and PMMA cements was the screw rotation at 1000 cycles (1.5° ± 0.9° vs. 1.3° ± 0.6°; P = 0.0026). All motion parameters increased significantly with more loading cycles. The pullout force was higher in the PMMA group than the Sr-HA group (1.40 ± 0.63 kN vs. 0.93 ± 0.70 kN), and this difference was marginally significant (P = 0.051). Sr-HA cement covered more of the screw length than PMMA cement (79 ± 19% vs. 43 ± 19%) (P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: This paired-design study identified some subtle but mostly nonsignificant differences in immediate biomechanical fixation of pedicle screws augmented with the Sr-HA cement compared with the PMMA cement.

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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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