Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Pedicle Screws”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Comparative efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty combined with minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation versus percutaneous vertebroplasty alone in the treatment of elderly osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

The study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) combined with minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation versus PVP alone in elderly patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF). Ninety-four elderly patients with OVCF were randomly classified into the control (47 patients) and combined (47 patients) groups. The control group received PVP, while the combined group received PVP combined with minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation. Perioperative indicators such as intraoperative blood lose, operative time, and hospitalization time were recorded. Pain was assessed using the VAS before and at baseline and 1, 3, and 7 days postoperatively. At 1 and 3 days postoperatively, Serum CRP levels, WBC, and neutrophil counts were measured postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes (vertebral height ratio and Cobb angle), ADL scores, JOA scores, and ODI were evaluated preoperatively and at 3 months post-operation. Postoperative complications were documented. Baseline characteristics were comparable. The combined group showed superior pain relief, vertebral height restoration, Cobb angle correction, functional recovery, and reduced inflammatory markers (CRP, WBC, neutrophils) postoperatively (all P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.05). Blood loss and hospital stay were shorter in the combined group, though operative time was longer (P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.05). Complication rates did not differ significantly (P&#x2009;>&#x2009;0.05). PVP combined with minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation yields better outcomes in elderly OVCF patients by enhancing pain control, vertebral height, and functional recovery without increasing perioperative risk.

Humans

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between intraoral scanning and conventional impressions for complete-arch implant prostheses: a pilot RCT.

OBJECTIVE: To compare framework passive fit, subjective evaluations, and short-term clinical outcomes between conventional impressions (CI) and intraoral scanning (IOS) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs). METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 22 patients were allocated to the CI or IOS groups. All participants received a definitive one-piece CIFDP. The primary outcome was framework passive fit, assessed using the Vision and Tactile Score (V&T score), which included framework lift-off, the single-screw test, the full-screw test, smoothness of screw insertion, and radiographic gap assessment. Secondary outcomes included operator evaluation, patient satisfaction using a visual analog scale (VAS), early implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), modified Plaque Index (mPII), and complications at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled (CI: n = 11; IOS: n = 11), and one patient in the CI group was lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference in the V&T score was observed between the CI and IOS groups (4.66 &#xb1; 0.17 vs. 4.65 &#xb1; 0.28; P = 0.93). The operator reported greater nervousness during the CI procedure than during IOS (21.82 &#xb1; 15.69 vs. 8.64 &#xb1; 7.47; P < 0.05). Patients in the CI group reported significantly greater discomfort, including nausea and anxiety, than those in the IOS group (P < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, the early implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in MBL (0.09 &#xb1; 0.09 vs. 0.06 &#xb1; 0.10 mm; P = 0.43) or mPII (0.10 &#xb1; 0.12 vs. 0.10 &#xb1; 0.28; P = 0.99). CONCLUSION: IOS and CI achieved comparable short-term clinical outcomes in patients who met the predefined inclusion criteria, including controlled implant number, spacing, and angulation. IOS provided a more favorable experience for both operators and patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In complete-arch implant restorations, intraoral scanning may provide clinical outcomes comparable to those of conventional impressions while improving patient comfort.

Humans