Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31628540›Full record

ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2019

Stress analysis of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under static and vibration loadings: a comparison between pedicle screw fixation system with rigid and flexible rods.

Wei Fan, Li-Xin Guo, Dan Zhao

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Biomechanical analysis of lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with various posterior stabilization systems.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 · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wei FanSchool of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Northeastern University, No. 3-11, Wenhua Road, Heping District, Shenyang, 110819, China. fanwei@mail.neu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0392-188X
Li-Xin GuoSchool of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Northeastern University, No. 3-11, Wenhua Road, Heping District, Shenyang, 110819, China.
Dan ZhaoLiaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shenyang, China.

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities N180303030National Natural Science Foundation of China 51875096
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of a pedicle screw fixation system with rods made of more compliant materials has become increasingly popular for spine fusion surgery in recent years. The aim of this study was to compare stress responses of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) when using flexible and conventional rigid posterior fixation systems. A previously validated intact L1-S1 finite element model was modified to simulate single-level (L4-L5) TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation using two types of connecting rod (rigid and flexible rods). The von Mises stresses in the implants (including TLIF cage, pedicle screws and rods) for the rigid and flexible fixations were analyzed under static and vibration loadings. The results showed that compared with the rigid fixation, the use of flexible fixation decreased the maximum stress in the pedicle screws, but increased the maximum stress in the cage and the ratio of maximum stress in the rods to the yield stress. It was also found that with decreasing diameter of the flexible rod (i.e. increasing flexibility of the rod), the maximum stress was decreased in the pedicle screws but increased in the cage and the rods. The findings imply that compared with the rigid rod, application of the flexible rod in the pedicle screw fixation system for the TLIF might decrease the breakage risk of pedicle screws but increase the risk of cage subsidence and rod breakage. Moreover, flexibility of the rod in the flexible fixation system should be carefully determined.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedInternal FixatorsLumbar VertebraeMaterials TestingPressureProsthesis DesignRange of Motion, ArticularRiskSpinal FusionStress, MechanicalVibration

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.