ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019
Biomechanical analysis of a novel height-adjustable nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 vertebral body: a finite element study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomaterials for vertebral body repair: interior augmentation and total replacement-a literature review of bone fusion outcomes in clinical studies.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Finite element analysis of short-segment fixation combined with expandable polyetheretherketone vertebral body replacement in osteoporotic vertebrae.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Outcomes for standalone anterolateral corpectomy for thoracolumbar burst fractures.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- A Comparison of Corpectomy ACDF Hybrid Procedures with Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide 66 Cage and Titanium Mesh Cage for Multi-level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Stepwise Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of anterior column reconstruction techniques after en bloc spondylectomy: a finite element study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Efficacy of NHP66 Bioactive Cage on Patients with Cervical Spine Injury in Short-Track Speed Skating.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Observational
- Posterior unilateral approach with 270° spinal canal decompression and three-column reconstruction using double titanium mesh cage for thoracic and lumbar burst fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Comparative analysis of three types of titanium mesh cages for anterior cervical single-level corpectomy and fusion in term of postoperative subsidence.American journal of translational research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the biomechanical properties of a novel height-adjustable nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 vertebral body (HAVB) with the titanium mesh cage (TMC) and artificial vertebral body (AVB), and evaluate its biomechanical efficacy in spinal stability reconstruction.
methodsA 3D nonliner FE model of the intact L1-sacrum was established and validated. Three FE models which instrumented HAVB, TMC, and AVB were constructed for surgical simulation. A pure moment of 7.5 Nm and a 400-N preload were applied to the three FE models in 3D motion. The peak von Mises stress upon each prosthesis and the interfaced endplate was recorded for analysis. In addition, the overall and intersegmental range of motion (ROM) of each model was investigated to assess the efficacy of each model in spinal stability reconstruction.
resultsAVB had the greatest stress concentration compared with TMC and HAVB in all motions (25.6-101.8 times of HAVB, 0.8-8.1 times of TMC). The peak stress on HAVB was 3.1-10.3% of TMC and 1.6-3.9% of AVB. The maximum stress values on L2 caudal and L4 cranial endplates are different between the three FE models: 0.9-1.9, 1.3-12.1, and 31.3-117.9 times of the intact model on L2 caudal endplates and 0.9-3.5, 7.2-31.5, and 10.3-56.4 times of the intact model on L4 cranial endplates in HAVB, TMC, and AVB, respectively, while the overall and segmental ROM reduction was similar between the three models, with AVB providing a relatively higher ROM reduction in all loading conditions (88.1-84.7% of intact model for overall ROM and 69.5-82.1% for L1/2, 87.0-91.7% for L2/4, and 71.1-87.2% for L4/5, respectively).
conclusionsHAVB had similar biomechanical efficacy in spinal stability reconstruction as compared with TMC and AVB. The material used and the anatomic design of HAVB can help avoid stress concentration and the stress shielding effect, thus greatly reducing the implant-associated complications. HAVB exhibited some advantageous biomechanical properties over TMC and AVB and may prove to be a potentially viable option for spinal stability reconstruction. Further in vivo and vitro studies are still required to validate our findings and conclusions.
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.