Comparative Assessment of Sacral Screw Loosening Augmented with PMMA Versus a Calcium Triglyceride Bone Cement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A calcium triglyceride bone cement (CTBC) was compared with the gold-standard polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) to assess the stability of augmented sacral screw fixation under cyclic loading. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CTBC augmentation of a pedicle screw would provide a similar level of fixation in the S1 pedicles compared with PMMA augmentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Numerous studies have shown the advantages of using PMMA to augment screw fixation; however, its biomechanical properties are not ideal. CTBC offers potential benefits such as being low exothermic, a modulus of elasticity closer to bone, and the potential for osteoconductivity, but its comparative performance in this situation has not been previously evaluated. METHODS: Six cadaveric sacra were used in this study; 3.0 mL volumes of PMMA (Simplex P) and CTBC (Kryptonite™ Bone Cement) were injected into contralateral screw tracts, with the screw immediately inserted after cement injection. After a 12-hour setting period, the sacrum was potted in a custom fixture and mounted to the frame of a materials testing machine. Alternating flexion and extension bending moments were applied at 1 Hz. Flexion moments were applied starting at 0.5 Nm and increased by 1 Nm after every 1000 cycles until the screw had reached 6° of rotation relative to its starting position. Extension moments were maintained at 0.5 Nm. Screw rotation relative to bone was determined in real time by a custom optical tracking system and was analyzed using two-way repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: To reach 6° of screw rotation, the PMMA-augmented screw required more loading cycles (15,464 ± 2526 vs. 10,277 ± 1762 cycles; P = 0.006) and a larger applied moment (15.3 ± 2.2 vs. 10.5 ± 1.7 Nm; P = 0.010) than CTBC-augmented screw. CONCLUSION: The PMMA augmentation provided increased resistance to cyclic loading compared with the CTBC augmentation for sacral pedicle screw fixation, but both augmentations well exceeded previously published findings for nonaugmented screws.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".