ArticleJOR spine2025
Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Denosumab and Bazedoxifene on Pedicle Screw Stability in Osteoporotic Spines.
Article in JOR spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic spines remains challenging. Bazedoxifene (BZA) and denosumab (Dmab) are widely used agents for osteoporosis, but their comparative effects on spinal instrumentation are not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of BZA and Dmab on biomechanical parameters of spinal instrumentation using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods: In this prospective, open-label study, postmenopausal women with primary osteoporosis were assigned to receive either BZA (daily oral, 20 mg) or Dmab (subcutaneous, 60 mg every 6 months) for 12 months. FEA models of the L4 vertebra were generated from CT scans using a calibration phantom (Mindways, Austin, TX, USA). Vertebral compression force was evaluated to represent overall vertebral strength. Pedicle screw fixation strength was assessed under axial (pullout strength) and non-axial directional forces (cranial, caudal, lateral, medial). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and multivariable regression were used to balance baseline differences and compare biomechanical outcomes between groups. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled (15 per group); the final analysis included 12 in the BZA group and 13 in the Dmab group. Compared to BZA, Dmab significantly improved compression strength (adjusted mean difference: 8.1% [95% CI, 0.9-15.3], Conclusion: Finite element modeling suggested that Dmab enhanced pedicle screw fixation more effectively than BZA, particularly against axial and cranial/lateral-directed forces. These biomechanical differences underscore the potential advantage of Dmab in preoperative osteoporosis management to improve pedicle screw stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.