ArticleMedicine2017
In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical Disc Arthroplasties Fail to Maintain Physiological Kinematics Under Lateral Eccentric Loads.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Correlation between sagittal and inclined angles of cervical facet joints and cervical disc herniation: a radiological observational study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Changes in the centre of rotation and the anterior bone loss of the vertebral body in Mobi-C artificial disc replacement segments after cervical hybrid surgery: a retrospective study.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 · 2024Article
- Range of motion after 1, 2, and 3 level cervical disc arthroplasty.North American Spine Society journal · 2023Article
- Comparative biomechanical analyses of lower cervical spine post anterior fusion versus intervertebral disc arthroplasty: A geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element investigation.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2022Article
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Intervertebral Fusion Process After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element Study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study.PloS one · 2022Article
- The impact of different artificial disc heights during total cervical disc replacement: an in vitro biomechanical study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- The Option of Motion Preservation in Cervical Spondylosis: Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Update.Neurospine · 2018Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of cervical disc replacement with a novel prosthesis based on the physiological curvature of endplate.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2018Article
- Investigating the mechanical effect of the sagittal angle of the cervical facet joint on the cervical intervertebral disc.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In vitro biomechanical analysis after cervical disc replacement (CDR) with a novel artificial disc prosthesis (mobile core) was conducted and compared with the intact model, simulated fusion, and CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis. The purpose of this experimental study was to analyze the biomechanical changes after CDR with a novel prosthesis and the differences between fixed- and mobile-core prostheses.Six human cadaveric C2-C7 specimens were biomechanically tested sequentially in 4 different spinal models: intact specimens, simulated fusion, CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis (Discover, DePuy), and CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis (Pretic-I, Trauson). Moments up to 2 Nm with a 75 N follower load were applied in flexion-extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right axial rotation. The total range of motion (ROM), segmental ROM, and adjacent intradiscal pressure (IDP) were calculated and analyzed in 4 different spinal models, as well as the differences between 2 disc prostheses.Compared with the intact specimens, the total ROM, segmental ROM, and IDP at the adjacent segments showed no significant difference after arthroplasty. Moreover, CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis presented a little higher values of target segment (C5/6) and total ROM than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis (P > .05). Besides, the difference in IDP at C4/5 after CDR with 2 prostheses was without statistical significance in all the directions of motion. However, the IDP at C6/7 after CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis was lower than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis in flexion, extension, and lateral bending, with significant difference (P < .05), but not under axial rotation.CDR with a novel prosthesis was effective to maintain the ROM at the target segment and did not affect the ROM and IDP at the adjacent segments. Moreover, CDR with a mobile-core prosthesis presented a little higher values of target segment and total ROM, but lower IDP at the inferior adjacent segment than CDR with a fixed-core prosthesis.
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.