SynthesisThe spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society2020
Comparison of biomechanical studies of disc repair devices based on a systematic review.
Synthesis in The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Balancing biological and biomechanical performance in intervertebral disc repair: a systematic review of injectable cell delivery biomaterials.European cells & materials · 2020Pooled it
- Mechanical and Biological Treatments for Annulus Fibrosus Repair and Closure: A Review of Clinical Studies.Neurospine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background contextA variety of solutions have been suggested as candidates for the repair of the annulus fibrosis (AF), with the ability to withstand physiological loads of paramount importance. PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to capture the scope of biomechanical test models of AF repairs. We hypothesized that common test parameters would emerge. STUDY
designSystematic Review
methodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies in English including the keywords "disc repair AND animal models," "disc repair AND cadaver spines," "intervertebral disc AND biomechanics," and "disc repair AND biomechanics." This list was further limited to those studies which included biomechanical results from annular repair in animal or human spinal segments from the cervical, thoracic, lumbar and/or coccygeal (tail) segments. For each study, the method used to measure the biomechanical property and biomechanical test results were documented.
resultsA total of 2,607 articles were included within our initial analysis. Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria. Significant variability in terms of species tested, measurements used to quantify annular repair strength, and the method/direction/magnitude that forces were applied to a repaired annulus were found. Bovine intervertebral disc was most commonly used model (6 of 22 studies) and the most common mechanical property reported was the force required for failure of the disc repair device (15 tests).
conclusionsOur hypothesis was rejected; no common features were identified across AF biomechanical models and as a result it was not possible to compare results of preclinical testing of annular repair devices. Our analysis suggests that a standardized biomechanical model that can be repeatably executed across multiple laboratories is required for the mechanical screening of candidates for AF repair. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This literature review provides a summary of preclinical testing of annular repair devices for clinicians to properly evaluate the safety/efficacy of developing technology designed to repair annular defects after disc herniations.
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.