Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Parameters of screws.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

A novel cervical pedicle screw design (right) involving a tapering core and thread diameter would lessen the chance of pedicle wall penetration when compared with the conventional cervical pedicle screw (left).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The 3D model of C3-C7 cervical spine with subtraction of lamina and spinous processes with screw aiming tract (blue arrow) in an image processing software before 3D printing.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The 3D printed model (white) was loaded into the specially designed immobilizers to secure their positions throughout the screw insertion experiment.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The Tri-layers foam (left) and the mono-layer foam (right) were prepared into 30 mm × 15 mm × 30 mm dimensions.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

A screw placement in a foam model, the new CPS screw (a), the stand CPS screw (c), and the lateral mass screw (c) were loaded in a special jig prepared for the actual pullout test.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Proportion of pedicle wall perforation between the 2 types of screws.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

The pedicle wall perforation was observed from the model after the safety insertion test.

The perforation grade 1 (yellow star) and grade 2 (red star) were observed in standard CPS insertion.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 3.

Mean difference and P-value compared in each group.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 7.

Pullout strength comparison of three posterior cervical fixation methods.

More »

Fig 7 Expand