Efficacy and Safety of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws versus Pedicle Screws in Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws and traditional pedicle screws in lumbar fusion. METHODS: Randomized controlled studies and cohort studies on CBT versus pedicle screws in lumbar fusion were searched in China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP Database for Chinese Technical and Science Periodicals, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The search period spanned from the establishment of the databases to December 2023. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the literature included. Clinical and imaging data as well as surgical outcomes, recovery, and postoperative complications were extracted from the relevant literature. RESULTS: A total of 6 randomized controlled trials and 26 cohort studies were included after screening by inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 2478 patients. The meta-analysis demonstrated significant discrepancies between the CBT and TPS groups in Japanese Orthopaedic Association score at 3 and 6 months and final follow-up. Moreover, the TPS group exhibited a higher Oswestry disability index at final follow-up, a greater VAS for low back pain at both 1 week and final follow-up, as well as a higher VAS for leg pain at 1 month. Differences were also noted in surgical and recovery outcomes. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: CBT and TPS have analogous safety profiles when applied to lumbar fusion, but the clinical efficacy of CBT is superior to that of TPS to some extent, and the procedure is less invasive with faster recovery.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".