ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
Biomechanical Comparison of 1-Level Corpectomy and 2-Level Discectomy for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can the Stand-Alone Cervical Interfacet Fusion Achieve Spinal Stability? A Comprehensive Finite Element Analysis.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Hidden blood loss in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion with adjacent discectomy for two-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Neurological and Biomechanical Evaluation of 72 Patients with Degenerative Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy at 3, 6, and 12 Months Following Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Altered brain network centrality in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: insights from resting-state fMRI.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Main elements of current spine biomechanics research: model, installation and test data.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Biomechanical comparison of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion, anterior controllable antedisplacement and fusion, and anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion in the surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Does Screw Number of Zero-profile Implants in Fusion Segment Influence Intervertebral Stability?Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Static mechanical analysis of the vertebral body after modified anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (partial vertebral osteotomy): a finite element model.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Cervical non-fusion using biomimetic artificial disc and vertebra complex: technical innovation and biomechanics analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Patient-specific numerical investigation of the correction of cervical kyphotic deformity based on a retrospective clinical case.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Finite Element Method for the Evaluation of the Human Spine: A Literature Overview.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) are effective treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), but it is unclear which is better. In this study, we compared the biomechanical properties of 2-level ACDF and 1-level ACCF. MATERIAL AND METHODS An intact C3-C7 cervical spine model was developed and validated, then ACDF and ACCF simulation models were developed. We imposed 1.0 Nm moments and displacement-controlled loading on the C3 superior endplate. The range of motions (ROMs) of surgical and adjacent segments and von Mises stresses on endplates, fixation systems, bone-screw interfaces, and bone grafts were recorded. RESULTS ACDF and ACCF significantly reduced the surgical segmental ROMs to the same extent. ACCF induced much lower stress peaks in the fixation system and bone-screw interfaces and higher stress peaks on the bone graft. ACDF induced much lower stress peaks on the C4 inferior endplate and equivalent stress on the C6 superior endplate. There was no difference in the ROMs of surgical and adjacent segments and the intradiscal stress of adjacent levels between ACDF and ACCF. CONCLUSIONS Both ACDF and ACCF can provide satisfactory spinal stability. ACDF may be beneficial for subsidence resistance due to the lower stress peaks on the endplate. The ACCF may perform better in long-term stability and bone fusion owing to the lower stress peaks in the fixation system and bone-screw interfaces, and higher stress peaks in the bone graft.
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.