ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2015
Biomechanical evaluation of a new pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device (Awesome Rod System)--a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical effects of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with spinal dynamic stabilization system use on adjacent segments: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Novel Modular Spine Blocks Affect the Lumbar Spine on Finite Element Analysis.Spine surgery and related research · 2022Article
- Cervical non-fusion using biomimetic artificial disc and vertebra complex: technical innovation and biomechanics analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Influence of posterior pedicle screw fixation at L4-L5 level on biomechanics of the lumbar spine with and without fusion: a finite element method.Biomedical engineering online · 2021Article
- Comparison of Biomechanical Performance of Five Different Treatment Approaches for Fixing Posterior Pelvic Ring Injury.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2020Article
- Stress analysis of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under static and vibration loadings: a comparison between pedicle screw fixation system with rigid and flexible rods.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2019Article
- Finite element simulation and clinical follow-up of lumbar spine biomechanics with dynamic fixations.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPedicle-screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization devices are designed to alleviate the rate of accelerated degeneration of the vertebral level adjacent to the level of spinal fusion. A new pedicle-screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device- the Awesome Dynamic Rod System was designed with curve cuts on the rods to provide flexibility. The current study was conducted to evaluate the biomechanical properties of this new device.
methodsFinite element models were developed for the intact spine (INT), the Awesome Dynamic Rod Implanted at L4-L5 (AWE), a traditional rigid rod system implanted at L4-L5 along with an interbody cage (FUS), and the Awesome Dynamic Rod System implanted at L4-L5 along with an interbody cage as an adjunct to fusion procedures and extension of dynamic fixation to L3-L4 (AWEFUS). The models were subjected to axial loads and pure moments and evaluated by a hybrid method on range of motion (ROM)s, disc stresses, pedicle screws stresses, and facet joint contact forces.
resultsFUS sustained the lowest L4-L5 ROM decrement in flexion and torsion. AWE demonstrated the lowest adjacent level ROM increment in all moments except for extension at L3-L4, and AWEFUS showed the greatest ROM increment at L2-L3. AWE demonstrated lowest adjacent segment disc stress in flexion, lateral bending and torsion at L3-L4. AWEFUS showed the highest disc stress increment in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, and the lowest disc stress decrement in torsion at L2-L3. AWE sustained greater adjacent facet joint contact forces than did FUS in extension and lateral bending at L3-L4, and AWEFUS demonstrated the greatest contact forces concentrating at L2-L3.
conclusionThe results demonstrate that the Awesome Dynamic Rod System preserved more bridged segment motion than did the traditional rigid rod fixation system except in extension. However, the Awesome Dynamic Rod System bore a greater facet joint contact force in extension. The Awesome Dynamic Rod System did protect the adjacent level of fusion segments, but led to much greater ROM, disc stresses, and facet joint contact forces increasing at the adjacent level of instrumented segments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.