Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24256208›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2014

Biomechanical evaluation of an injectable and biodegradable copolymer P(PF-co-CL) in a cadaveric vertebral body defect model.

Zhong Fang, Hugo Giambini, Heng Zeng, Jon J Camp, Mahrokh Dadsetan, Richard A Robb, Kai-Nan An, Michael J Yaszemski, Lichun Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Biomechanical effects of defect size and location on vertebral fracture.Journal of medical and biological engineering · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Mechanical testing setups affect spine segment fracture outcomes.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Zhong Fang1 Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester, Minnesota.
Hugo Giambini
Heng Zeng
Jon J Camp
Mahrokh Dadsetan
Richard A Robb
Kai-Nan An
Michael J Yaszemski
Lichun Lu

Funding

Metastatic Spine Tumors: Minimally Invasive Fracture Risk Analysis and Treatment - MasterR01AR056212 · NIAMS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Benjamin D Elder, Lichun Lu · 2008 to 2026
$6.2M
Injectable Osteoinductive Biodegradable CompositesR01EB003060 · NIBIB · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI LU, LICHUN, YASZEMSKI, MICHAEL J · 2003 to 2014
$3.4M
EXTRAMURAL RES FACIL IMPROVEMENT PROG: POLYCYSTIC KIDNEY DISEASE, RENAL STUDIES,C06RR018898 · NCRR · MAYO CLINIC · PI BURNETT, JOHN C · 2004 to 2004
$2.3M
NCRR NIH HHS RR018898NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR056212NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB003060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A novel biodegradable copolymer, poly(propylene fumarate-co-caprolactone) [P(PF-co-CL)], has been developed in our laboratory as an injectable scaffold for bone defect repair. In the current study, we evaluated the ability of P(PF-co-CL) to reconstitute the load-bearing capacity of vertebral bodies with lytic lesions. Forty vertebral bodies from four fresh-frozen cadaveric thoracolumbar spines were used for this study. They were randomly divided into four groups: intact vertebral body (intact control), simulated defect without treatment (negative control), defect treated with P(PF-co-CL) (copolymer group), and defect treated with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA group). Simulated metastatic lytic defects were made by removing a central core of the trabecular bone in each vertebral body with an approximate volume of 25% through an access hole in the side of the vertebrae. Defects were then filled by injecting either P(PF-co-CL) or PMMA in situ crosslinkable formulations. After the spines were imaged with quantitative computerized tomography, single vertebral body segments were harvested for mechanical testing. Specimens were compressed until failure or to 25% reduction in body height and ultimate strength and elastic modulus of each specimen were then calculated from the force-displacement data. The average failure strength of the copolymer group was 1.83 times stronger than the untreated negative group and it closely matched the intact vertebral bodies (intact control). The PMMA-treated vertebrae, however, had a failure strength 1.64 times larger compared with the intact control. The elastic modulus followed the same trend. This modulus mismatch between PMMA-treated vertebrae and the host vertebrae could potentially induce a fracture cascade and degenerative changes in adjacent intervertebral discs. In contrast, P(PF-co-CL) restored the mechanical properties of the treated segments similar to the normal, intact, vertebrae. Therefore, P(PF-co-CL) may be a suitable alternative to PMMA for vertebroplasty treatment of vertebral bodies with lytic defects.

Indexed as

Materials TestingModels, BiologicalAgedBiocompatible MaterialsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone DensityCadaverElastic ModulusFractures, CompressionHumansInjectionsMiddle AgedPolyestersSpinal FracturesSpineTomography, X-Ray ComputedBiocompatible Materialspoly(caprolactone fumarate)Polyesterspoly(propylene fumarate-co-caprolactone)

Identifiers

PMID24256208
PMCPMC3938939

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.