Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Augmented Bridge Spinal Fixation: A New Concept for Addressing Pedicle Screw Pullout via a Steerable Drilling Robot and Flexible Pedicle Screws

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that two J-shaped tunnels drilled from opposite pedicles, populated with flexible screws and joined by injected cement, could make spinal fixation in osteoporotic bone stronger by distributing load along a continuous…

desk verdict AB-SF is a new bridging concept, but the robot never drills the straight pedicle corridor in the experiments, so the core J-tunnel drilling claim is only half-demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01753 v1 pith:OY5LEGGS submitted 2025-07-02 cs.RO

Yash Kulkarni , Susheela Sharma , Omid Rezayof , Siddhartha Kapuria , Jordan P. Amadio , Mohsen Khadem , Maryam Tilton , Farshid Alambeigi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords spinalfixationpediclescrewpulloutsteerabledrillingrobotflexiblebonecementaugmentationconcentrictubeosteoporoticvertebracurved
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces Augmented Bridge Spinal Fixation (AB-SF), a proposed alternative to conventional rigid pedicle screws for spinal fusion in osteoporotic patients. The idea is to drill two connecting J-shaped tunnels through the pedicles with a concentric-tube steerable drilling robot, insert flexible pedicle screws along those curves, and inject bone cement through the screws so the two anchors become one continuous bridge. The authors try to establish that this bridge geometry is physically and procedurally feasible: the robot can create the planned curved tunnels that meet at a chosen point inside a vertebral phantom, the flexible screws can follow those tunnels, and injected material can fill the connection. They support this with two phantom experiments, one straight-curved and one curved-curved trajectory, reporting radius-of-curvature errors of 7.4% and 9.6%. If the concept holds in real bone, it would give surgeons a way to distribute spinal loads along a whole vertebra rather than concentrating stress at the tips of two separate screws.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of a concentric-tube steerable drilling robot (CT-SDR) and a flexible pedicle screw (FPS). The CT-SDR uses a curved, pre-shaped Nitinol inner tube inside a straight stainless outer tube so that one drill pass produces a J-shaped tunnel with a straight section followed by a curved section; a robotic arm provides gross positioning and the insertion depths of the outer and inner tubes set where the curve begins and ends. The FPS is a cannulated, additively manufactured semi-flexible screw sized to match the drilled tunnel, and its internal channel serves as the conduit for the cement that forms the bridge. The planning framework ties five adjustable parameters—insertion angle, outer- and inner-tube insertion depths, radius of curvature, and meeting angle—to patient anatomy and to the constraint that the two screws meet at a chosen point.

What would settle it

Drill a complete J-shaped trajectory, straight and curved sections, through intact cortical and cancellous bone (or a phantom without the pre-printed corridor) and check whether the flexible screw still reaches the planned meeting point with radius-of-curvature error comparable to the reported 7–10%; a clear failure to track the tunnel would refute the feasibility claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AB-SF is feasible as a fixation concept: two J-shaped tunnels drilled from opposite pedicles can be made to meet inside the vertebral body, two flexible pedicle screws passed through those tunnels can reach and connect at the planned meeting point, and injected material can fill the screw interiors and surrounding tunnel space to form an augmented bridge. The paper demonstrates this in a 1.5-times-scaled L3 vertebral phantom with a printed cortical shell and synthetic cancellous bone substitute. In the straight-curved scenario the measured radius of curvature was 26.84 mm against a planned 25 mm, a 7.4% error; in the curved-curved scenario it was 38.36 mm against 35 mm, a 9.6% error. X-ray images show the flexible screws deforming along the drilled paths and the injected silicone mixture forming a continuous connection between the two screws, which the authors read as evidence that cement augmentation could create a load-distributing bridge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the robot can drill the straight portion of the J-shaped tunnel through solid bone with the same accuracy as the curved portion, since in the straight-side scenario the phantom already contained a pre-printed hollow corridor and the robot only had to drill the curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surgeons could plan a fixation in which two screws meet inside the vertebral body rather than ending as two separate anchors, changing where load concentrates.
  • Cement augmentation could be delivered through the screw's internal channel to the junction point, creating a continuous reinforced bridge rather than only coating the immediate screw-bone interface.
  • The planning framework gives a route to target high bone-mineral-density regions of the vertebra while avoiding the pedicle wall and nerves.
  • Both straight-curved and curved-curved bridge geometries are accessible with the same CT-SDR, so the approach is not limited to one anatomical configuration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The study's phantom leaves the straight section of one trajectory pre-drilled, so the strongest direct evidence is for the curved-drilling capability; a full-tunnel test through solid cortical bone would be needed before claiming the entire J-shape is robot-drilled.
  • The injected silicone is a stand-in for bone cement; whether real PMMA or calcium phosphate flows through the screw channel and fills the junction in the same way remains untested.
  • A meaningful clinical translation would be a pullout or cyclic-loading comparison of AB-SF against conventional rigid pedicle screws in osteoporotic bone; the current experiments show feasibility of geometry and injection, not mechanical superiority.
  • If the bridge does redistribute load, it might allow the same fixation strength with smaller screws or less cement volume, reducing leakage risk, but this is an extrapolation beyond what the paper measures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new spinal fixation concept, Augmented Bridge Spinal Fixation (AB-SF), in which two J-shaped tunnels are drilled through the pedicles with the authors' Concentric Tube Steerable Drilling Robot (CT-SDR), two Flexible Pedicle Screws (FPSs) are inserted into the tunnels, and bone cement is injected through the FPSs to form a continuous bridge between the two pedicles. The authors describe the five adjustable trajectory parameters and four constraints used to plan the AB-SF configuration, then report experiments in two scenarios (Straight-Curved and Curved-Curved) performed on a 1.5x-scaled PLA/Sawbone vertebral phantom. Using magnetic tracking and ICP registration, they report radius-of-curvature errors of 7.4% and 9.6% against the planned 25 mm and 35 mm radii, respectively, with ICP RMSE around 1 mm. They also show X-ray images of FPS insertion and silicone injection as a stand-in for bone cement, and conclude that the experiments demonstrate the feasibility of the AB-SF technique.

Significance. If the AB-SF concept were fully validated, it could offer a meaningful alternative for spinal fixation in osteoporotic patients, where pedicle screw loosening and pullout remain unsolved clinical problems. The paper's strongest contribution is the experimental demonstration that two curved tunnels can be created from opposite pedicles and that two flexible screws can meet at a planned point inside a vertebral phantom, with quantitative trajectory measurements by magnetic tracking and ICP registration. The repeated trials and explicit error metrics are commendable for a proof-of-concept study. However, the paper does not yet validate the load-bearing premise of the concept: the 'cement bridge' is simulated with silicone, no pullout or mechanical testing is reported, and the straight portion of the J-shaped tunnel is not actually drilled by the robot. The significance is therefore that of an early feasibility study, not an end-to-end validation of the proposed fixation method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Scenarios 1 and 2] The central feasibility claim that the CT-SDR drills complete J-shaped tunnels through the pedicles is not fully supported by the experiments, because in both scenarios the straight portion of the J-trajectory passes through a pre-printed 8 mm hollow corridor in the PLA shell, leaving the robot to cut only the curved portion in Sawbone. The straight-to-curved transition and the behavior of the drilling system in intact cortical bone are therefore untested, and the reported 7.4% and 9.6% radius-of-curvature errors characterize only the curved segment. The paper should either add experiments in which the CT-SDR drills the straight segment through an intact cortical-shell surrogate, or explicitly reframe the claims as validation of the curved-section drilling component only.
  2. [Section IV, silicone injection and Section V, Discussion] The load-bearing component of the AB-SF concept remains unvalidated: the injection experiment uses Ecoflex 00-10 silicone mixed with magnetic powder, not a bone cement such as PMMA or calcium phosphate, and no mechanical test (pullout, toggle, or stiffness) is reported. The Discussion's statement that the cement 'can create a continuous bridge ... that biomechanically can distribute the load' is therefore an unsupported extrapolation from X-ray images of silicone flow. At minimum, the paper should temper the biomechanical claims and state explicitly that the augmentation strength has not been measured.
  3. [Section IV and Table I] The accuracy metrics are reported only for the curved portion inside PCF 5 Sawbone in a 1.5x-scaled phantom, so they cannot be read as end-to-end trajectory accuracy for a human vertebra. The straight segment, the cortical bone shell, and the anatomical scale all differ from the clinical setting, and the transition between straight and curved drilling is exactly where tool deflection is most likely. The authors should either provide end-to-end accuracy measurements in a more realistic bone model or restrict the conclusions to the demonstrated curved-path accuracy.
  4. [Table I and Section IV] The precision claim is weakened by the S2 result: for the Curved-Curved scenario the standard deviation is 4.05 mm on a nominal 35 mm radius (roughly 11.6% relative standard deviation), which is not 'low' in the same sense as the S1 standard deviation of 0.83 mm. The paper does not report the number of trials or the fitting procedure for the radius of curvature, and no statistical comparison is made. This should be addressed so that the reader can judge whether the two scenarios are equally reliable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the authors 'successfully simulated the bone cement augmentation process,' but Section IV uses a silicone substitute; the abstract should specify that the injectate is a silicone stand-in, not bone cement.
  2. [Section IV, phantom description] The text says that for the Straight side of Scenario 1 the robot drilled a straight trajectory of 49.4 mm, but the phantom description states that an 8 mm hollow corridor replicating the straight part was pre-printed; these statements should be reconciled to avoid confusing the reader about what was actually drilled.
  3. [Section III-B, planning procedure] The Biomechanics-Aware Trajectory Selection Module is cited in step (iv) but is not used in the reported experiments; the paper should clarify whether this module was part of the planning in the phantom study or remains only a proposed step.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and language errors, including 'choosen,' 'grannulates,' 'direct affect' (should be 'effect'), and 'the the'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [Figure 5] The X-ray and trajectory plots are small and would benefit from scale bars, labels for the meeting point, and clear markings of the straight-curved transition to support the quantitative claims made in the text.
  6. [Section VI, Future work] The future-work list mentions real bone cement and cadaveric specimens but does not explicitly mention pullout or mechanical testing, which is the decisive experiment for the AB-SF concept; this should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: AB-SF feasibility is tested against external drilling-accuracy benchmarks; self-citations describe system provenance rather than providing load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the feasibility of a new Augmented Bridge Spinal Fixation (AB-SF) concept, in which two J-shaped tunnels are drilled with the CT-SDR and connected by flexible pedicle screws and injected cement. This claim is evaluated experimentally against an external benchmark: the drilled/inserted trajectories are compared with independently specified ideal radii of curvature (25 mm and 35 mm), yielding measured errors of 7.4% and 9.6%, plus ICP registration RMSE values. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the ideal trajectory parameters are chosen a priori from the planning procedure, and the measured radius of curvature is an independent outcome. The paper contains no uniqueness theorem, no equation in which the derived quantity equals an input by construction, and no self-citation chain that substitutes for experimental evidence. Citations to the authors' prior CT-SDR and FPS work establish the provenance and design of the hardware, but the feasibility demonstration in this paper does not logically reduce to those citations. The pre-printed 8 mm hollow corridor in the phantom is a real experimental limitation regarding the straight portion of the trajectory, but it is not a circularity: the curved portion, the meeting point, FPS insertion, and cement injection are still externally evaluated. The central derivation chain is therefore self-contained, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free-parameter model and no invented physical entities. The central feasibility claim rests on the domain assumptions above, all of which are explicit or directly implied in the experimental section.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CT-SDR can create curved J-shape tunnels inside a vertebral body as assumed from prior work [8], [11].
    The paper does not re-derive the kinematic capability of the CT-SDR; it treats the prior demonstrations as valid.
  • domain assumption The flexible pedicle screw (FPS) can safely follow the drilled curved trajectory and its threads engage the bone.
    The FPS geometry and material are from prior work [18]-[20]; here the paper only measures the achieved curvature, not thread-bone engagement.
  • domain assumption Silicone (Ecoflex 00-10) injection is an adequate substitute for bone cement to demonstrate bridge formation.
    Differing viscosity and setting behavior mean silicone only demonstrates flow and filling, not cement interdigitation with bone (Section IV-B).
  • domain assumption A 1.5x scaled PLA shell filled with PCF 5 Sawbone represents osteoporotic vertebral anatomy.
    The scaling and materials change the mechanical response and tunnel geometry, so accuracy numbers may not transfer to human bone (Section IV-A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Augmented Bridge Spinal Fixation: A New Concept for Addressing Pedicle Screw Pullout via a Steerable Drilling Robot and Flexible Pedicle Screws." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OY5LEGGS

@misc{pith2026250701753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Augmented Bridge Spinal Fixation: A New Concept for Addressing Pedicle Screw Pullout via a Steerable Drilling Robot and Flexible Pedicle Screws},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OY5LEGGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01753}
}
read the original abstract

To address the screw loosening and pullout limitations of rigid pedicle screws in spinal fixation procedures, and to leverage our recently developed Concentric Tube Steerable Drilling Robot (CT-SDR) and Flexible Pedicle Screw (FPS), in this paper, we introduce the concept of Augmented Bridge Spinal Fixation (AB-SF). In this concept, two connecting J-shape tunnels are first drilled through pedicles of vertebra using the CT-SDR. Next, two FPSs are passed through this tunnel and bone cement is then injected through the cannulated region of the FPS to form an augmented bridge between two pedicles and reinforce strength of the fixated spine. To experimentally analyze and study the feasibility of AB-SF technique, we first used our robotic system (i.e., a CT-SDR integrated with a robotic arm) to create two different fixation scenarios in which two J-shape tunnels, forming a bridge, were drilled at different depth of a vertebral phantom. Next, we implanted two FPSs within the drilled tunnels and then successfully simulated the bone cement augmentation process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of the proposed Augmented Bridge Spinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental set-up used for evaluating the proposed AB-SF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Left) The design parameters required for planning a AB-SF drilling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) Experimental set-up used for taking X-ray shots and visualizing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: First row of the figure shows the snapshots of inserting the FPSs inside the drilled tunnels in S1 (Straight-Curved) and S2 (Curved-Curved) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures,

    O. Johnell and J. Kanis, “An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures,” Osteoporosis international, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1726–1733, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    A biomechanics-aware robot-assisted steerable drilling framework for minimally invasive spinal fixation procedures

    S. Sharma, Y . Sun, J. Bonyun, M. Khadem, J. Amadio, A. H. Eskandari, and F. Alambeigi, “A biomechanics-aware robot-assisted steerable drilling framework for minimally invasive spinal fixation procedures.” IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering , vol. PP, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Insufficient stability of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: biomechanical correlation of bone mineral density and pedicle screw fixation strength,

    L. Weiser, G. Huber, K. Sellenschloh, L. Viezens, K. P ¨uschel, M. M. Morlock, and W. Lehmann, “Insufficient stability of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: biomechanical correlation of bone mineral density and pedicle screw fixation strength,” European Spine Journal, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 2891–2897, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    ”pedicle screw salvage: the effect of depth and diameter on pull-out strength: a biomechanical study

    U. Talu, ˙Ibrahim Kaya, F. Dikici, and C. Sar, “”pedicle screw salvage: the effect of depth and diameter on pull-out strength: a biomechanical study”,” Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica , vol. 34, pp. 300–307, 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Biomechanical analysis of pedicle screw thread differential design in an osteoporotic cadaver model

    H. Mehta, E. L. N. D. Santos, C. G. T. Ledonio, J. N. Sembrano, A. M. Ellingson, P. E. Par ´e, B. Murrell, and D. J. Nuckley, “Biomechanical analysis of pedicle screw thread differential design in an osteoporotic cadaver model.” Clinical biomechanics, vol. 27 3, pp. 234–40, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Computer-assisted screw size and insertion trajectory planning for pedicle screw place- ment surgery,

    D. Knez, B. Likar, F. Pernus, and T. Vrtovec, “Computer-assisted screw size and insertion trajectory planning for pedicle screw place- ment surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 35, pp. 1420–1430, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Clinical effects and complications of pedicle screw augmentation with bone cement: Comparison of fenestrated screw augmentation and vertebroplasty augmentation,

    J. H. Kim, D. K. Ahn, W. S. Shin, M.-J. Kim, H. Y . Lee, and Y . R. Go, “Clinical effects and complications of pedicle screw augmentation with bone cement: Comparison of fenestrated screw augmentation and vertebroplasty augmentation,” Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery , vol. 12, pp. 194 – 199, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    A concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally invasive spinal fixation of osteoporotic vertebrae

    S. Sharma, T. G. Mohanraj, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, and F. Alam- beigi, “A concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally invasive spinal fixation of osteoporotic vertebrae.” IEEE transactions on bio- medical engineering, vol. PP, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Inroads toward robot- assisted internal fixation of bone fractures using a bendable medical screw and the curved drilling technique,

    F. Alambeigi, M. Bakhtiarinejad, A. Azizi, R. A. Hegeman, I. I. Iordachita, H. S. Khanuja, and M. Armand, “Inroads toward robot- assisted internal fixation of bone fractures using a bendable medical screw and the curved drilling technique,” 2018 7th IEEE International Conferen...

    2018

  2. [10]

    On the use of a continuum manipulator and a bendable medical screw for minimally invasive interventions in orthopedic surgery,

    F. Alambeigi, M. Bakhtiarinejad, S. Sefati, R. Hegeman, I. Iordachita, H. Khanuja, and M. Armand, “On the use of a continuum manipulator and a bendable medical screw for minimally invasive interventions in orthopedic surgery,” IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics,...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Towards biomechanics-aware design of a steerable drilling robot for spinal fixation procedures with flexible pedicle screws,

    S. Sharma, Y . Sun, S. Go, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, A. H. Eskandari, and F. Alambeigi, “Towards biomechanics-aware design of a steerable drilling robot for spinal fixation procedures with flexible pedicle screws,” 2023 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR) , pp. 1–6, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Caudo-cephalad loading of pedicle screws: mechanisms of loosening and methods of augmentation

    M. D. Law, A. F. Tencer, and P. A. Anderson, “Caudo-cephalad loading of pedicle screws: mechanisms of loosening and methods of augmentation.” Spine, vol. 18 16, pp. 2438–43, 1993

    1993

  5. [13]

    A handheld steerable surgical drill with a novel miniaturized articulated joint module for dexterous confined-space bone work,

    Y . Wang, H. Zheng, R. H. Taylor, and K. W. Samuel Au, “A handheld steerable surgical drill with a novel miniaturized articulated joint module for dexterous confined-space bone work,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 2926–2934, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    A curved-drilling ap- proach in core decompression of the femoral head osteonecrosis using a continuum manipulator,

    F. Alambeigi, Y . Wang, S. Sefati, C. Gao, R. J. Murphy, I. Iordachita, R. H. Taylor, H. Khanuja, and M. Armand, “A curved-drilling ap- proach in core decompression of the femoral head osteonecrosis using a continuum manipulator,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 2,...

    2017

  7. [15]

    A novel concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally in- vasive treatment of spinal tumors using cavity and u-shape drilling techniques,

    S. Sharma, J. H. Park, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, and F. Alambeigi, “A novel concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally in- vasive treatment of spinal tumors using cavity and u-shape drilling techniques,” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ...

    2023

  8. [16]

    S3d: A spatial steerable surgical drilling framework for robotic spinal fixation procedures,

    D. Maroufi, X. Huang, Y . Kulkarni, O. Rezayof, S. Sharma, V . Goggela, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, and F. Alambeigi, “S3d: A spatial steerable surgical drilling framework for robotic spinal fixation procedures,” ArXiv, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Towards design and development of a concentric tube steerable drilling robot for creating s-shape tunnels for pelvic fixation procedures,

    Y . Kulkarni, S. Sharma, S. Go, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, and F. Alambeigi, “Towards design and development of a concentric tube steerable drilling robot for creating s-shape tunnels for pelvic fixation procedures,” ArXiv, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    A synergistic patient-specific approach for en- hanced spinal fixation using a novel flexible pedicle screw and a complementary steerable drilling robotic system,

    Y . Kulkarni, S. Sharma, Z. Yakay, S. Go, J. P. Amadio, M. Tilton, and F. Alambeigi, “A synergistic patient-specific approach for en- hanced spinal fixation using a novel flexible pedicle screw and a complementary steerable drilling robotic system,” IEEE Transactions on Biomed...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Towards biomechanical evaluation of a transformative additively manufactured flexible pedicle screw for robotic spinal fixation,

    Y . Kulkarni, S. Sharma, J. P. Amadio, and F. Alambeigi, “Towards biomechanical evaluation of a transformative additively manufactured flexible pedicle screw for robotic spinal fixation,” 2024 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR) , pp. 1–6, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Towards the feasibility analysis and additive manufac- turing of a novel flexible pedicle screw for spinal fixation procedures,

    Y . Kulkarni, S. Sharma, J. Allison, J. P. Amadio, M. Tilton, and F. Alambeigi, “Towards the feasibility analysis and additive manufac- turing of a novel flexible pedicle screw for spinal fixation procedures,” The 35th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Spatial spinal fixation: A transformative approach using a unique robot-assisted steerable drilling system and flexible pedicle screw,

    S. Sharma, Y . Kulkarni, S. Go, J. Bonyun, J. P. Amadio, R. Rajebi, M. Tilton, M. Khadem, and F. Alambeigi, “Spatial spinal fixation: A transformative approach using a unique robot-assisted steerable drilling system and flexible pedicle screw,” 2024 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Co...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Experimental investigation of pull-out performance of pedicle screws at different polyurethane (pu) foam densities,

    A. C ¸ etin and D. A. Bircan, “Experimental investigation of pull-out performance of pedicle screws at different polyurethane (pu) foam densities,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine , vol. 235, no. 6, pp. 709– 716, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine

    M. R. Zindrick, L. L. Wiltse, E. H. Widell, J. C. Thomas, H. Wr, F. Bt, and C. W. Spencer, “A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine.” Clinical orthopaedics and related research, vol. 203, pp. 99–112, 1986

    1986

  16. [24]

    Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium eli (extra low interstitial) with powder bed fusion,

    “Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium eli (extra low interstitial) with powder bed fusion,” Standard F3001-14(2021), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, United States, Oct. 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Chapter 3 - localization for unmanned vehicle,

    Q. Zhou, Z. Shen, G. Huang, P. Zhi, and R. Zhao, “Chapter 3 - localization for unmanned vehicle,” in Theories and Practices of Self-Driving Vehicles , Q. Zhou, Z. Shen, B. Yong, R. Zhao, and P. Zhi, Eds. Elsevier, 2022, pp. 63–93. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ecoflex™ series technical bulletin,

    I. Smooth-On, “Ecoflex™ series technical bulletin,” n.d., accessed: Feb. 25, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Designs and techniques that improve the pullout strength of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: Current status,

    T. M. Shea, J. Laun, S. A. Gonzalez-Blohm, J. Doulgeris, W. E. Lee, K. Aghayev, and F. D. Vrionis, “Designs and techniques that improve the pullout strength of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: Current status,” BioMed Research International , vol. 2014, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.