A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Biomechanical comparison of two different compression screws for the treatment of odontoid fractures in human dens axis specimen. | LitMetric

Background: Lag screw osteosynthesis for odontoid fractures has a high rate of pseudoarthrosis, especially in elderly patients. Besides biomechanical properties of the different screw types, insufficient fragment compression or unnoticed screw stripping may be the main causing factors for this adverse event. The aim of the study was to compare two screws in clinical use with different design principles in terms of compression force and stability against screw stripping.

Methods: Twelve human cadaveric C2 vertebral bodies were considered. Bone density was determined. The specimens were matched according to bone density and randomly assigned to two experimental groups. An odontoid fracture was induced, which were fixed either with a 3.5 mm standard compression screw or with a 5 mm sleeve nut screw. Both screws are certified for the treatment of odontoid fractures. The bone samples were fixed in a measuring device. The screwdriver was driven mechanically. The tests were analyzed for peak interfragmentary compression and screw-in torque with a frequency of 20 Hz.

Findings: The maximum fragment compression was significantly higher with screw with sleeve nut at 346.13(SD ±72.35) N compared with classic compression screw at 162.68(SD ±114.13) N (p = 0.025). Screw stripping occurred significantly earlier in classic compression screw at 255.5(SD ±192.0)° rotation after reaching maximum compression than in screw with sleeve nut at 1005.2(SD ±341.1)° (p = 0.0039).

Interpretation: Screw with sleeve nut achieves greater fragment compression and is more robust to screw stripping compared to classic compression screw. Whether the better biomechanical properties lead to a reduction of pseudoarthrosis has to be proven in clinical studies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2023.106162DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

compression screw
20
sleeve nut
16
screw
14
odontoid fractures
12
fragment compression
12
screw stripping
12
screw sleeve
12
classic compression
12
compression
11
treatment odontoid
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!