ArticlePloS one2018
In vitro biomechanical evaluation of a monocoque plate-spacer construct for cervical open-door laminoplasty.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical Lift-up Basket Laminoplasty after Resection of Spinal Intramedullary Tumors: A Finite Element Analysis and Clinical Image Evaluation.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2022Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate biomechanical differences between two surgical procedures for cervical open-door laminoplasty using human cadaveric spines.
methodsTwenty-four cervical vertebrae (C4-C6) from eight fresh-frozen human cervical spines were subjected to mechanical testing after being instrumented for open-door laminoplasty using a newly designed plate-spacer device with a monocoque structure (plate-spacer group; n = 12) or by conventional miniplate-alone fixation (miniplate group; n = 12). Cantilever bending testing was performed by applying a compressive load in the cranio-caudal direction to the base of the spinous process of the reconstructed laminar arch constructs until failure and strength and stiffness of the laminar arch were determined. The results are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
resultsThe plate-spacer group was approximately twice as strong as the miniplate group (27.6 ± 16.5 N vs. 13.5 ± 7.3 N, p < 0.05). Stiffness in the plate-spacer group exhibited the same trend (19.6 ± 9.3 N/mm vs. miniplate group: 11.4 ± 6.9 N/mm, p < 0.05).
conclusionThe fixation with the monocoque plate-spacer construct for open-door laminoplasty provided higher structural properties when compared against the plate-alone fixation. The spacer in the plate-spacer construct appears to contribute by preventing large deformations of the laminar arch caused by bending in cranio-caudal direction. Future studies will be required to investigate stress/strain distribution in the laminar arch constructs.
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.