English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background the CBT for placing lumbar pedicle screws is a technique used to improve fixation during instrumented fusion of the lumbar spine. In comparison with traditional trajectory (TT) for pedicle screws, CBT screws (otherwise known as pars screws or cortical screws) have a more medial starting point and are aimed in a medial to lateral, caudal to cranial direction. First reported in 2009 as a method to increase the purchase of lumbar pedicle screws within bone.(1) Aim of the Work to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether traditional Pedicles Screw Fixation (PS Fx) or Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation (CBT Fx); has been successful for the treatment and fixation of lumbar spine in adult patients with degenerative and traumatic spine disorders; and to compare the 2 techniques to identify risk factor for unfavorable outcome through the recent researches about that issue. Methodology this review was done using standard methodology outlined in the Cochrane Handbook and reported the findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Results meta-analysis study showed that; Successful fusion rate in fixed and random-effects models were (92.24% respectively); in SP group.Successful fusion rate in fixed and random-effects models were (92.44% respectively); in CBT group.Fixed and random-effects models showed non-significant difference in successful fusion rate; between the 2 groups of studies (p &amp;gt; 0.05). We calculated safety for each technique through post-operative (failed fusion rate). Conclusion Although there were insignificant p-values in the most of the comparative items but the CBT showed lower average of intraoperative blood loss, operation time and higher average of decrease in VAS &amp; increase in ODI, slightly higher fusion rate in comparison with PS. So we recommend, the use of CBT as an acceptable alternative of PS in lumbar spine fixation.

Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation of Lumbar Spine in Adult Patients with Degenerative and Traumatic Spine Disorders