Comparison of pedicle screw loosening under uniaxial and multiaxial loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pedicle screw loosening is a clinically-relevant failure mode following spinal fusion procedures, resulting from damage and compaction to the surrounding bone with loading of the bone-implant interface. Current in vitro tests for investigating pedicle screw loosening commonly apply uniaxial loading (e.g. screw pullout or toggle testing). However, these methods do not replicate multiaxial spinal loading associated with activities of daily living. The goals of this study were to (1) develop and assess a novel test method for inducing pedicle screw loosening under multiaxial loading conditions, and (2) compare this approach to uniaxial toggle testing. METHODS: Eight osteoporotic human lumbar vertebrae (L2-L4, 70.1 ± 5.5 years old) underwent testing to compare volumetric bone damage and screw displacement under uniaxial and multiaxial loading. Load magnitudes were incrementally increased in a step-wise fashion after 1000 and 2000 cycles, with the final load step continuing until the screw head displaced more than 6 mm. Post-test computed tomography (CT) imaging was used to quantify volumetric bone damage. FINDINGS: Multiaxial loading accelerated bone damage leading to earlier implant loosening (p < 0.001). Failure predominantly occurred in the inferior direction (p = 0.06). Medial (p = 0.07) and lateral (p < 0.001) screw displacement were greater under multiaxial loading. CT imaging showed greater volumetric bone deformation with multiaxial loading (p = 0.01). INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrated that physiologically-derived multiaxial loading accelerates volumetric bone damage and pedicle screw loosening. Further, the increased bone deformation in the medial and lateral directions suggests that spinal movements involving these loads may accelerate risk of screw loosening.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".