ArticleNeurospine2019
Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Lumbar Cortical Screws and Pedicle Screws in Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Article in Neurospine, 2019. 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.
- Are Ceramic Cages an Option for Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Comparative Biomechanical Numerical Study.JOR spine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the porosity and structural stability of 3D-printed porous titanium pedicle screws using finite element analysis.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effects of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with spinal dynamic stabilization system use on adjacent segments: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation and finite element analysis of bone cement-augmented anterolateral screw fixation versus percutaneous bilateral pedicle screw fixation co-applied with oblique lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Biomechanical Analysis of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages With Various Elastic Moduli in Osteoporotic and Non-osteoporotic Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Biomechanical investigation of the hybrid lumbar fixation technique with traditional and cortical bone trajectories in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Optimization of Spinal Reconstructions for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures to Prevent Proximal Junctional Complications: A Finite Element Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Biomechanics of extreme lateral interbody fusion with different internal fixation methods: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Biportal Endoscopic Technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Current Research.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLumbar cortical screw fixation (CSF), rather than pedicle screw fixation (PSF), has recently been attempted in lumbar interbody fusion. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of lumbar CSF using a finite element (FE) model.
methodsA 3-FE model, including the L1 to S1 levels, was designed to evaluate and compare the biomechanical stability of lumbar CSF and PSF in single-level lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5. Cortical or pedicle screws were inserted bilaterally, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) were modeled at L4-5, respectively. We compared the stability of CSF to that of PSF in these 2 different anatomic variations of PLIF, as well as in TLIF.
resultsLumbar CSF showed less stability than PSF in PLIF when the midline posterior ligaments were not preserved, but demonstrated similar stability when the ligaments were preserved. The range of motion (ROM) at the treated level in CSF was larger than that observed for PSF, in all PLIF and TLIF models. Furthermore, the ROM in the posterior ligament-sacrificing PLIF with CSF model was larger than the ROM in the posterior ligament-preserving PLIF with CSF or PSF model.
conclusionBased on our FE analysis, the stability of CSF is comparable to that of PSF in PLIF and TLIF when the midline posterior ligaments are preserved.
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.