Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22407270›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2012

Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System® (TFAS®): loading as compared to a rigid posterior instrumentation system.

Simon G Sjovold, Qingan Zhu, Anton Bowden, Chad R Larson, Peter M de Bakker, Marta L Villarraga, Jorge A Ochoa, David M Rosler, Peter A Cripton

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Simon G SjovoldDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Qingan Zhu
Anton Bowden
Chad R Larson
Peter M de Bakker
Marta L Villarraga
Jorge A Ochoa
David M Rosler
Peter A Cripton
Vancouver Coastal Health · CAExponent (United States) · USUniversity of British Columbia · CAVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo gain insight into a new technology, a novel facet arthroplasty device (TFAS) was compared to a rigid posterior fixation system (UCR). The axial and bending loads through the implants and at the bone-implant interfaces were evaluated using an ex vivo biomechanical study and matched finite element analysis. Kinematic behaviour has been reported for TFAS, but implant loads have not. Implant loads are important indicators of an implant's performance and safety. The rigid posterior fixation system is used for comparison due to the extensive information available about these systems.

methodsUnconstrained pure moments were applied to 13 L3-S1 cadaveric spine segments. Specimens were tested intact, following decompression, UCR fixation and TFAS implantation at L4-L5. UCR fixation was via standard pedicle screws and TFAS implantation was via PMMA-cemented transpedicular stems. Three-dimensional 10 Nm moments and a 600 N follower load were applied; L4-L5 disc pressures and implant loads were measured using a pressure sensor and strain gauges, respectively. A finite element model was used to calculate TFAS bone-implant interface loads.

resultsUCR experienced greater implant loads in extension (p < 0.004) and lateral bending (p < 0.02). Under flexion, TFAS was subject to greater implant moments (p < 0.04). At the bone-implant interface, flexion resulted in the smallest TFAS (average = 0.20 Nm) but greatest UCR (1.18 Nm) moment and axial rotation resulted in the greatest TFAS (3.10 Nm) and smallest UCR (0.40 Nm) moments. Disc pressures were similar to intact for TFAS but not for UCR (p < 0.04).

conclusionsThese results are most applicable to the immediate post-operative period prior to remodelling of the bone-implant interface since the UCR and TFAS implants are intended for different service lives (UCR--until fusion, TFAS--indefinitely). TFAS reproduced intact-like anterior column load-sharing--as measured by disc pressure. The highest bone-implant moment of 3.1 Nm was measured in TFAS and for the same loading condition the UCR interface moment was considerably lower (0.4 Nm). For other loading conditions, the differences between TFAS and UCR were smaller, with the UCR sometimes having larger values and for others the TFAS was larger. The long-term physiological meaning of these findings is unknown and demonstrates the need for a better understanding of the relationship between spinal arthroplasty devices and the host tissue as development of next generation motion-preserving posterior devices that hope to more accurately replicate the natural functions of the native tissue continues.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, ReplacementBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansLumbar VertebraeProstheses and ImplantsRange of Motion, ArticularRotationWeight-BearingZygapophyseal Joint

Identifiers

PMID22407270
PMCPMC3535260
OpenAlexW2063017936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.