| Title |
A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-015-0270-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroki Oshino, Toshihiko Sakakibara, Tadashi Inaba, Takamasa Yoshikawa, Takaya Kato, Yuichi Kasai |
| Abstract |
There have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after pedicle screw (PS) fixation. In this study, 20 lumbar spine (L5-6) specimens were assigned to two groups: the CBT model group that underwent CBT screw fixation (n = 10) and the PS model group that underwent pedicle screw fixation (n = 10). Using a six-axis material testing machine, bend and rotation tests were conducted on each model. The angular displacement from the time of no load to the time of maximum torque was defined as range of motion (ROM), and then, the mean ROM in the bend and rotation tests and the mean rate of relative change of ROM in both the bend and rotation tests were compared between the CBT and PS groups. There were no significant differences between the CBT and PS groups with regard to the mean ROMs and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests. Intervertebral stability after CBT fixation was similar to that after PS fixation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pakistan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,369,595
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#411
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,533
of 238,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#7
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.