ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2018
Biomechanical analysis of a new lumbar interspinous device with optimized topology.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2018. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Interspinous Process Device: In Vitro Flexibility Assessment and Finite Element Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Experimental Analysis of Stress Shielding Effects in Screw Spacers Placed in Porcine Spinal Tissue.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Preliminary exploration of the biomechanical properties of three novel cervical porous fusion cages using a finite element study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Biomechanical Effects of a Novel Pedicle Screw W-Type Rod Fixation for Lumbar Spondylolysis: A Finite Element Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Coflex-F and Pedicle Screw Fixation: Finite Element Analysis of Static and Vibration Conditions.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Biomechanical comparison of different interspinous process devices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Improving the Stability of a Hemipelvic Prosthesis Based on Bone Mineral Density Screw Channel and Prosthesis Optimization Design.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Biomechanical investigation of topping-off technique using an interspinous process device following lumbar interbody fusion under vibration loading.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- The advances of topology optimization techniques in orthopedic implants: A review.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Review
- Implications of 3-Dimensional Printed Spinal Implants on the Outcomes in Spine Surgery.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2021Article
- Design of Porous Metal Block Augmentation to Treat Tibial Bone Defects in Total Knee Arthroplasty Based on Topology Optimization.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Interspinous spacers used stand-alone preserve joint movement but provide little protection for diseased segments of the spine. Used as adjuncts with fusion, interspinous spacers offer rigid stability but may accelerate degeneration on adjacent levels. Our new device is intended to balance the stability and preserves motion provided by the implant. A new interspinous spacer was devised according to the results of topology optimization studies. Four finite element (FE) spine models were created that consisted of an intact spine without an implant, implantation of the novel, the device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM system), and the Dynesys system. All models were loaded with moments, and their range of motions (ROMs), peak disc stresses, and facet contact forces were analyzed. The limited motion segment ROMs, shielded disc stresses, and unloaded facet contact forces of the new devices were greater than those of the DIAM and Dynesys system at L3-L4 in almost all directions of movements. The ROMs, disc stresses, and facet contact forces of the new devices at L2-L3 were slightly greater than those in the DIAM system, but much lower than those in the Dynesys system in most directions. This study demonstrated that the new device provided more stability at the instrumented level than the DIAM system did, especially in lateral rotation and the bending direction. The device caused fewer adjacent ROMs, lower disc stresses, and lower facet contact forces than the Dynesys system did. Additionally, this study conducted topology optimization to design the new device and created a smaller implant for minimal invasive surgery.
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.