ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Biomechanical evaluation of DTRAX(®) posterior cervical cage stabilization with and without lateral mass fixation.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally Invasive Decompression and Fusion With Percutaneous Facet Cages vs Traditional Lateral Mass Screw Fixation for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Targeted anterior expansion of the cervical facet joints achieves indirect foraminal decompression and reduces spondylolisthesis via a posterior approach: a cadaveric study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- The use of cervical interfacet devices and related clinical outcomes.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 · 2025Article
- Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive posterior cervical fusion: a single center, single surgeon retrospective review.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Intrafacet Spacer Placement as a Mobility-Sparing Bailout Option in Atlantoaxial Fusion Construct Salvage.Ochsner journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Biomechanics of Circumferential Cervical Fixation Using Posterior Facet Cages: A Cadaveric Study.Neurospine · 2021Article
- Intraoperative image guidance for cervical spine surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Fusion With Facet Cages to Augment High-Risk Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis: A Case Series.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Tissue-Sparing Posterior Cervical Fusion With Interfacet Cages: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Global spine journal · 2020Review
- MIS approaches in the cervical spine.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2019Review
- Length of stay associated with posterior cervical fusion with intervertebral cages: experience from a device registry.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2018Article
- Perioperative complications in patients treated with posterior cervical fusion and bilateral cages.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- A novel classification and algorithmic-based management of craniovertebral junction osteoarthrosis.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Clinical and radiological results of percutaneous facet cage stabilization and indirect decompression in cervical spondylosis.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Multilevel cervical laminectomy and fusion with posterior cervical cages.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLateral mass screw (LMS) fixation with plates or rods is the current standard procedure for posterior cervical fusion. Recently, implants placed between the facet joints have become available as an alternative to LMS or transfacet screws for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of the DTRAX(®) cervical cage for single- and two-level fusion and compare this to the stability achieved with LMS fixation with rods in a two-level construct.
methodsSix cadaveric cervical spine (C3-C7) specimens were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation to ±1.5 Nm moment without preload (0 N) in the following conditions: 1) intact (C3-C7), 2) LMS and rods at C4-C5 and C5-C6, 3) removal of all rods (LMS retained) and placement of bilateral posterior cages at C5-C6, 4) bilateral posterior cages at C4-C5 and C5-C6 (without LMS and rods), and 5) C4-C5 and C5-C6 bilateral posterior cages at C4-C5 and C5-C6 with rods reinserted.
resultsBilateral posterior cervical cages significantly reduced range of motion in all tested directions in both single- and multilevel constructs (P<0.05). Similar stability was achieved with bilateral posterior cages and LMS in a two-level construct: 0.6°±0.3° vs 1.2°±0.4° in flexion-extension (P=0.001), (5.0°±2.6° vs 3.1°±1.3°) in lateral bending (P=0.053), (1.3°±1.0° vs 2.2°±0.9°) in axial rotation (P=0.091) for posterior cages and LMS, respectively. Posterior cages, when placed as an adjunct to LMS, further reduced range of motion in a multilevel construct (P<0.05).
conclusionBilateral posterior cages provide similar cervical segmental stability compared with a LMS and rod construct and may be an alternative surgical option for select patients. Furthermore, supplementation of a lateral mass construct with posterior cages increases cervical spine stability in single- and multilevel conditions.
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.