ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2015
Comparison of Intervertebral ROM in Multi-Level Cadaveric Lumbar Spines Using Distinct Pure Moment Loading Approaches.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the porosity and structural stability of 3D-printed porous titanium pedicle screws using finite element analysis.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Article
- Segmental range of motion of vertebral body tethering: an in-vitro analysis of single-tether, double-tether, and hybrid constructs.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Subsidence reduction effect of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with upper and lower open windows modified with lattice structure.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Article
- Biomechanical Effect of Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization Implant on the Segmental Motion and Intradiscal Pressure in Human Lumbar Spine.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPure-moment loading is the test method of choice for spinal implant evaluation. However, the apparatuses and boundary conditions employed by laboratories in performing spine flexibility testing vary. The purpose of this study was to quantify the differences, if they exist, in intervertebral range of motion (ROM) resulting from different pure-moment loading apparatuses used in two laboratories.
methodsTwenty-four (laboratory A) and forty-two (laboratory B) intact L1-S1 specimens were loaded using pure moments (±7.5 Nm) in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial torsion (AT). At laboratory A, pure moments were applied using a system of cables, pulleys and suspended weights in 1.5 Nm increments. At laboratory B, specimens were loaded in a pneumatic biaxial test frame mounted with counteracting stepper-motor-driven biaxial gimbals. ROM was obtained in both labs using identical optoelectronic systems and compared.
resultsIn FE, total L1-L5 ROM was similar, on average, between the two laboratories (lab A: 37.4° ± 9.1°; lab B: 35.0° ± 8.9°, p=0.289). Larger apparent differences, on average, were noted between labs in AT (lab A: 19.4° ± 7.3°; lab B: 15.7° ± 7.1°, p=0.074), and this finding was significant for combined right and left LB (lab A: 45.5° ± 11.4°; lab B: 35.3° ± 8.5°, p < 0.001).
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study comparing ROM of multi-segment lumbar spines between laboratories utilizing different apparatuses. The results of this study show that intervertebral ROM in multi-segment lumbar spine constructs are markedly similar in FE loading. Differences in boundary conditions are likely the source of small and sometimes statistically significant differences between the two techniques in LB and AT ROM. The relative merits of each testing strategy with regard to the physiologic conditions that are to be simulated should be considered in the design of a study including LB and AT modes of loading. An understanding of these differences also serves as important information when comparing study results across different laboratories.
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.