ArticleGlobal spine journal2019
Single-Level In Vitro Kinematic Comparison of Novel Inline Cervical Interbody Devices With Intervertebral Screw, Anchor, or Blade.
Article in Global spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Main elements of current spine biomechanics research: model, installation and test data.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Does Screw Number of Zero-profile Implants in Fusion Segment Influence Intervertebral Stability?Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designIn vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.
objectiveTo compare the biomechanics of integrated anchor and blade versus traditional screw fixation techniques for interbody fusion.
methodsFifteen cadaveric cervical spines were divided into 3 equal groups (n = 5). Each spine was tested: intact, after discectomy (simulating an injury model), interbody spacer alone (S), integrated interbody spacer (iSA), and integrated spacer with lateral mass screw and rod fixation (LMS+iS). Each treatment group included integrated spacers with either screw, anchor, or blade integrated spacers. Constructs were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) under pure moments (±1.5 N m).
resultsAcross all 3 planes, the following range of motion trend was observed: Injured > Intact > S > iSA > LMS+iS. In FE and LB, integrated anchor and blade significantly decreased motion compared with intact and injured conditions, before and after supplemental posterior fixation (
conclusionAll integrated interbody devices reduced intact and injured motion; lateral mass screws and rods further stabilized the single motion segment. Comparing screw, anchor, or bladed integrated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion spacers revealed no significant differences.
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.